Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
paul valletta wrote on Mar. 7, 2010 @ 16:53 GMT
I have often wondered if the vacuum between the local Star our Sun and Earth, is of the same density as the vacuum between a Proton and its nearest Electron?
When photons travel from the Sun to here, there is nothing apart from Protons (proton flux/free elecrtons) in the intermedieate space. From the Electron to the Proton in atomic structure, there is a small vacuum. The photon travels at a constant speed relative to the Sun_space-vacuum_Earth, and the Electron_vacuum_ Proton.
Or does it?..from Galaxy to Galaxy there is also vacuum void, but due to the Expansion rate, the void appears to be filled with an anti_graviton/anti_proton flux, quark soup? Any matter that transports across this void would interact as if it was an aether, the MM experiment is only valid local, by this I mean internal to our Galaxy?
some things fit ?Some wave lengths would not fit in our galaxy ?
report post as inappropriate
Galaxymachine.de wrote on Mar. 7, 2010 @ 18:42 GMT
Following:
This "flexible/fluid" - "Rest Frame" could form these too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Networ
k
Maybe time behaves like a fluid too. And those gravitationally determined pathways through space, stretch the time-fluid.
report post as inappropriate
Phil Sarazen wrote on Mar. 7, 2010 @ 20:33 GMT
Time is a human abstraction, It is a comparison of physical phenomeon in motion; we know it not by any other means.
If we take a pendulam clock to Jupiter the pendulan will fall faster and the hands of the clock will go around faster. Can you say that time goes faster? No one can only say that the gravitational forces that effect the mechanics of the clock make the workings of the clock go faster.
If we take an atomic clock to Jupiter can we say that time goes slower? No, we can only say that the mechanics of the clock are effected by the Physical reality of Jupiter; by the denser electromagnetic fields that permeate everything and as such slow down the workings of the atomic clock.
If one uses Lorenz's model, but asume the ether is the electrmagnetic fields that extend from all partical masses, one can explain all relativistic and Quantum Mechanical phenomena.
report post as inappropriate
Marshall Barnes replied on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 22:38 GMT
Like most time deniers, Phil, you are confusing things. Let me cut to the chase - if time didn't exist you wouldn't be here. None of us would because time is part of space and and without it you don't have events. No events, then you don't even have space because the creation of this space, that we call the universe, was an event.
So everything that you can think of - clock hands spinning, atoms moving in atomic clocks or even the strength of an electromagnetic field - is an event. Time might be malleable, and perhaps even transversable, but in the end it is inescapable and there's nothing that anyone can posit that changes that.
That said, I think that Petr Horava may be on to something and I plan on reading his papers further to learn more of what his theory is.
Oh, and your comment that assuming the ether is the EMFs extending extending from all partical masses will explain all QM and relativistic phenomena requires supporting data because I can think of quite a number of both QM and relativistic phenomena that fly in the face of that idea...
report post as inappropriate
miker wrote on Mar. 8, 2010 @ 00:05 GMT
The MM experiment and its conclusion were/are misplaced . Aether does exist. The MM experiment supposed that the aether would generate a 'wind' across the surface of the earth as the earth moved through it. The aether isn't static like static air. Aether moves toward mass. The MM experiment could never detect the aether 'wind' because the MM experiment looked in the wrong direction...the MM experiment always looked for aether as if it were moving across the surface of the earth. It doesn't move that way, so it can't be detected that way. It moves toward mass...it moves toward the center of mass. Aether flow is what we call gravity. The Mossbauer experiments show this. Aether movement toward mass is gravity.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 23:55 GMT
Miker,
Right. That being the case, the aether is not differentiable from the vacuum. Just as Einstein had it -- a superfluous concept.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 10, 2010 @ 11:23 GMT
Dear Miker,
The aether exists but don't interact physically speaking, the codes of informations inside the main central spheres of gravity which rotate, them are the causes of the physicality , the aether interacts thus , paradoxal, no because it is by codes of becoming.
There you can encircle thus the difference between the infinity and the finite sphere in evolution towards the perfect harmony between cosmological spheres.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 10, 2010 @ 12:56 GMT
The aether, at least in the 19th century context, shifts itself in a way which makes it indiestinguishable from a spacetime vacuum. There is a sort of vacuum problem with quantum field theory and the cosmological constant. This paper by Petr's paper is most interesting from the perspective of what questions this raises. It is curiously similar in a way to the pre-Lorentzian notion of the aether with no spacetime symmetry, where Petr's theory involves a broken Lorentz symmetry. This seems to raise an interesting question than it does to advance a solution.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
galaxymachine.de wrote on Mar. 8, 2010 @ 07:31 GMT
I guess i have some reading todo ;)
Thanks miker & Phil.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 8, 2010 @ 14:15 GMT
I have Petr's paper, but I will confess I had not gotten around to reading. His papers back in 2004-6, where he proposes a K-theoretic approach to Dp-brane theory I read repeatedly. In this work Petr illustrates how solid state (like) physics with Fermi surfaces have homotopy and K-theoretic quantum numbers. I suppose I will try to read in the near future Petr's paper
Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point in the near future.
I will register some disappointment with this however. I have indicated here and elsewhere that general relativity and quantum mechanics have different notions of time. Relativity defines an invariant time according to proper time or an invariant interval, while quantum field theory imposes wave equations on spatial surfaces with a local arrow of time. This is a coordinate condition required to specify the initial data for a QFT wave equation, where the associated time is not an invariant, but is fixed by a freely chosen gauge-like condition. So there are two notions of time that are not compatible. I have thought in the spirit of Hegel there must exist a dialectic of two opposites or dualities which define a consistent whole. In its basic conceptual framework the notion of breaking Lorentz symmetry seems not to fit this bill.
In a condensed matter physics analogue the lattice has to be treated according to some group structure. Bloch waves then have a periodicity determined by this symmetry, such as a space groups or crystallographic symmetry, and in lattice gauge theory there are Mantin actions with similar properties. Yet this lattice and its symmetries might in be a gauge-like or coordinate condition. If so then the space group is a subgroup of a more general symmetry. It appears that Petr is saying the lattice symmetry if “fixed,” using the solid state analogue. I think that the lattice structure determines connection terms, where in an elliptic complex one must take “connections modulo group actions,” so for connection in Λ^1(M) there is a sequence
Λ^1(M) -- > Λ^1(M)/G --d-->Λ^2(M)
The action will then be appropriate for a Polyakov path integral formulation, and we might then avoid what seems to be a hurtful violation of spacetime symmetry.
Cheers LC
\
report post as inappropriate
Ivan Pasternak wrote on Mar. 8, 2010 @ 18:38 GMT
Time is what the clock measure. put synchronized clocks one on the top of the tower and one at the foot of the tower after a while put the two clocks one next to other and compare it's time.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 8, 2010 @ 23:25 GMT
What a lovely breath of fresh air this site can be sometimes!
Good marks to Paul and Miker, and the M&Mx did not invalidate the 'dragged' ether (but NOT 'all pervasive') that Sagnac supported as well as so much else;
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:YQp037P-VIgJ:scholar.g
oogle.com/+stellar+aberration+anomaly&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites
But all does rather demonstrate the degree of flow as very negligible Miker, and not 'inward'.
And Paul, you say perhaps "The photon travels at a constant speed relative to the Sun_space-vacuum_Earth, and the Electron_vacuum_ Proton." ..but MM is only locally valid, within our galaxy.
Petr's paper is massively contortional but has to be politically as he's telling string theorists there is an ether, so the reported malaise with SR is true. I sense the long due paradigm change, but the catalyst is still hidden.
So Paul, how can the photon pass the sun at 'c' wrt the sun heading for us, which we know it does as Shapiro and many others have checked, then meet our planet doing 1,000k round the sun and also be found doing 'c' here!? Let's take a simple 'reality' view and ask if it changes speed.
So if it did where would it do it? Obviously at the point it doppler shifts! So let's check where that is with radio signals from spacecreft. We find it's at the planetary shock. The anomalous region of dense oscillating particle activity, the standing 'bow wave' that aligns with the planets orbital vector despite what we're still teaching at Uni and the lateral battering from SMP's.
Petr may be close to the truth. Einstein may have been closer in his battle with Bohr in the name of Reality. He tried to close the gap, but perhaps should have looked the other way, even further towards reality;
A model of Discrete Fields (the 'DFM') based on his '52; space is actually "infinately many 'spaces' in relative motion", but with real regions of ether surrounding all collections of mass, in relative motion, with particle 'shock' boundaries. And 'c' is constant locally within each, because it changes speed and wavelength at the shocks to be so?
And yes Lawrence, all arrows of time, and space, would be local to all mass, from a single electron and it's shock cloud, proportional to velocity (so much for equivalence and contraction) upwards to galaxy clusters. - And yes Paul, and matter crossing the void would interacts with the ether. And all using the postulates of SR. - A catalyst?? - Or perhaps it's all too real?
Paper 3; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010
No new math is required for now. Please check if you can and give me any views.
Many thanks
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 02:47 GMT
I think some people have a bit of confusion here. This putative aether is different from the aether of pre-Einstein physics. This aether is more of a quantum effect or quantum field effect.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 15:15 GMT
Yes, and a big part of Jacobson's work [along with certain collaborators...] is to look for aether-ish theories that pass current observational tests without having to invoke new interpretation of the data or potentially overlooked subtleties in the experiment.
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 15:04 GMT
Hi Lawrence
No confusion here. I agree entirely - It's currently proposed with no link to physical reality. My post suggests an option WITH one.
But it still is a 'quantum field effect', or to be precise, a quantum field, with effects. Re read in that vein and it should become clearer.
EINSTEIN LENSING
The question is asked in the article; can any model explain it. Yes indeed.
The anomaly is that Shapiro 'curved light track' delays, even with some gravitational dilation added, predict relative delays orders of magnitude lower than observed (spectroscopy). As this is also the only way galactic mass can be estimated some galaxies come out ridiculously solid!
A while ago delays of over 2 years were found! and, while we were fumbling around for a solution to that one, another of 3 years has just been confirmed!! This meets no current astrological model.
The DFM predicted exactly this (and predicts more) over a year ago! Feynman was right, 'Nature will always find a simpler way than man can imagine'. I posed the question to my 8yr old nephew recently, ..he got it right. Can any physicists out there in cyberspace shed preconception, stand back, think so simply and and see reality so clearly?
Have a try; Q; Light going through an intervening galaxy that's moving away from us arrives after light lensed round the outside. Why?
Best of luck. Peter
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 9, 2010 @ 22:36 GMT
Einstein lensing requires no aether theory. For a pretty complete discussion on
Gravitational Lensing from a Spacetime Perspective, this should suffice.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 10, 2010 @ 14:20 GMT
Lawrence
Seems you may not have read it, it's not complete at all as it doesn't address the anomalous temporal magnitude. But it's not alone, in fact no-one sucessfully has. OK, back then I think the max delay was little over a year. Seriously anomalous, but nothing like as serious as the ones found since.
Most astronomers have been reticent to make themselves look foolish by even mentiong it let alone making a big deal of it! Interestingly it took probably our best female astrophysicist Evalyn Gates to break ranks and be honest in public;
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009
/07/13/guest-post-evalyn-gates-cosmic-magnification.
Of course we could stay head in the sand about it, but the sand's pretty busy with older mainsteam trogladites these days!
Occams razor, like Feynman, is correct, there is a simple solution. It's the same one that predicted the unexplaned quadrupolar assymmetry on the ecliptic polar from WMAP. Whether or not anyone will even look let alone recognise is a quite different question.!
(This signal is part of the search for intellegent life in the solar system).
Peter
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 00:15 GMT
This anomalous time problem is not a problem. Photons from a source will arc around an interposed gravity well with different proper distances. This fact is being used to calibrate the cosmological expansion.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 18:21 GMT
Lawrence
It's the exceptional depth and scale of the wells that's the issue Lawrence, which is why that theory has been questioned. Some galaxies would need to be pretty solidly packed with black holes, which completely conflicts with the observed evidence. Of course the left side of our brains doesn't like us living with paradox so many have been happy to accept unfalsifiable 'solutions'.
As I understand Ted's work it's very consistent with the Discrete Field Model, based on modified Horava gravity and Eistein Aether Theory with a tensor and dynamic vector field. The DFM only takes an extra step towards Einsteins beloved 'Reality' to link it up with Locality, allowing both postulates of SR as the anomalies are resolved at all scales by the physical quantum mechanism for equivalence.
So why should Ted want to avoid testing old interpretations and checking subtleties that may have been overlooked? We all know something is wrong with physics. If the model for an adjusted solution seems to match observation better than others should it not be further investigated?
Or should we continue in the mainstream, ignoring experimental evidence, observation and borne out prediction that doesn't agree with our 'beliefs', and let assumption and unfalsified theory rule our paradigms.
Do let me know if it's the latter as I'll need to change my testing procedures!!
One last question, and I know what Ted's answer would be; If a photon, as part of a wavefront, travels at 'c' across space, and doesn't meet any mass for eons, what is it travelling at 'c' with respect to?
Peter
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 23:58 GMT
The light which is deflected by intervening galaxy is not defected that strongly. The effect is really not that different from the deflection of starlight by the sun. The photons do not go deep into the gravity well. The gravity fields, or equivalently the spacetime curvature, is extensive and covers a large region, but these curvatures are rather modest.
Cheers LC
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 14:42 GMT
Absolutely Lawrence.
Which is what gives rise to the anomaly; the curvature would have to be vastly greater than is possible from gravity wells to give the lensing delays being found. 2 years delay would generate a ridiculous lensing mass, but many stuck their heads in the sand, now over 3 years has been confirmed we all know we have something hopelessly wrong!
Evelyn Gates comment was; "This implies that we're either missing some physics in our simulations, or we may need to modify our cosmological model."
I've been testing model modifications. The only area giving any hope is field theory. If we take Aranohov-Bohm and other 'non-locality' evidence seriously a tensor-vector field like Teds' could offer a solution, but only by allowing discrete fields (DFM) locally, in relative motion. From that a solution suddenly emerges which consistently resolves the issues.
And - most interestingly - seemingly a number of others! - And it just successfully predicted the 'unexplained' quadropolar assymmetry with polar ecliptic orientation in the CMB.
But, though it works within the SR postulates, it's probably too simple and divorced from mainstream beliefs, needing something of a paradigms change, so I can't see it taking off.
But if anyone with other expertise fancies helping trying to further test and falsify it for me they are of course very welcome.
Peter
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 10, 2010 @ 10:53 GMT
Aether ....gravity mass or light constant.....the ideas of Stokes are interestings about the motion and the immobility of the light.
Thus the physical system is dynamic and the other is a infinite light above the physical laws.
Thus the time permits to the mass to polarise the flux of light inside this system.
Thus the special relativity in the physicality takes all its sense, and the aether behind is thus different.One is infinite, the other finite and in building.The aether don't interact in the physicality because the codes are there in the gravity since the begining, the rotations become essentials for the motion and the mass.
It is a spiritual and universal interpretation limited due to our physicality, indeed we are mass inside this system.....
To understand the physicality, it is to understand the aim of this infinite light of love.We are catalyzers , builders, creators,of the harmony, this aim between spheres.All is the same, light but with different rotating spheres which imply the specificity and the rule in time constant inside a 3D.
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 22:30 GMT
Peter,
Could it be that the light lensing around the galaxies is speeding up, as well as the light going through them is slowing down? Wouldn't that balance the effect out?
Might this also be the source of redshift?
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 22:33 GMT
Another form of slingshot effect, so to speak.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 00:13 GMT
This problem does not exist! I am not sure why you are claiming this. The distances and focal lengths are on the order of up to several billions of light years. A delay of a year or so along one path over the other means a difference between the two proper distances of 1-2 light years over a total distance of billions of light years. This is not a huge difference, and is why these differences in paths is seen with tiny (sec)^2 steradians of solid angle of view. The light from the distant object lensed does not pass close to any central black hole, and two light paths are slightly bent by this curvature.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 23:12 GMT
John Merryman replied on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 23:59 GMT
Lawrence,
Not to dwell on the point, but these differences are all between light that did succeed in passing these gravity wells, not what is falling into them, which would have been slowed far more considerably.
Presumably space is expanding between galaxies, as it is falling into them. So what is flat space? What has no gravity at all? What is far enough away from any gravity source to be affected?
According to theory, flat space is when the expansion and contraction balance out, so it would seem space sufficiently far away from gravity fields for the light not to be obviously distorted would be expanded, not flat.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 00:57 GMT
"A delay of a year or so along one path over the other means a difference between the two proper distances of 1-2 light years over a total distance of billions of light years. This is not a huge difference, and is why these differences in paths is seen with tiny (sec)^2 steradians of solid angle of view. The light from the distant object lensed does not pass close to any central black hole, and two light paths are slightly bent by this curvature."
Yes, it's a very narrow view of what must be a very broad effect, since both paths are lensed, just one slightly more than the other.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 01:27 GMT
Yes the two paths are lensed, and true one more than that other. The deflection of light from the gravity field is very slight for both paths. This is analogous to the thin lens approximation in classical optics.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 17:47 GMT
Lawrence,
There might be a way to prove or refute my point here.
Since the light is from the same source, is the faster light at a greater redshift than the slower light? Or would it be too small to measure?
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 20:03 GMT
But the lense distances here are NOT billions of light years Lawrence. The calculations show the delays should be orders of magnitude less. And when the top astrophysicists say; "This implies that we're either missing some physics in our simulations, or we may need to modify our cosmological model."
It may be time to remove our heads from the sand and accept there may just be some kind of anomaly here. (Or some galaxies are nearly solid - if that's not anomalous!).
And John. You ask; "Could it be that the light lensing around the galaxies is speeding up, as well as the light going through them is slowing down? Wouldn't that balance the effect out? Might this also be the source of redshift?"
Not 'speeding up' within known physics, as, unlike the 'slingshot' effect of spacecraft acceleration around planets, 'c' is invariant. The overall effects of gravitational time dilation and red shift are also supposed to be small, as Lawrence did say, or even balance out. However, the one thing we DO know for sure about our present physics is that much of it is wrong!
But, if Ted Jacobson is correct and there is an Einstein Ether, you could be right in that the light going through a galaxy could be 'slowed down' wrt us if the galaxy is moving away whilst the light is going through its local field at 'c', which of course we know it does N'est pas?. This would be one of Einsteins "..infinitely many fields in relative motion". Of course this is too 'real' and logical for current science, and, like Messier87, won't quite fit in with it as it can't be wrong!
So perhaps Lawrence is right and there are no anomalies in astronomy. Shall I let them know it's all ok again?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 01:12 GMT
Peter,
C may be invariant, but Physics' understanding of space is not, from Inflation theory to whether redshift is due to an expansion "in" space, or "of" space.
My argument with Lawrence has been that if Omega=1 and expansion is inversely proportional to gravitational contraction, then Big Bang theory is a moot point, since space/our measure of space/the effects on light of crossing gravity fields vs. voids, is in a state of overall equilibrium. If the space/our measure of it, is increasing between galaxies at the same rate it is falling into them, where is the overall expansion coming from?
So, no, I'm not suggesting the greater speed of light around galaxies is due to light exceeding C, but as Lawrence keeps pointing out, C is a local effect. If we say "space" is "expanding" outside of gravity wells, then light in this space will travel more quickly than light further in the gravity well. There is no objective default space, as it were, either it's expanding, contracting, or balanced between the two.
That's why I commented on your point, that light going through gravity fields travels slower than that going around them. It is a relative effect, they are only slower, or faster, relative to the other.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 12:31 GMT
I certainly take your point John, indeed I did say 'with known physics', and that we know that doesn't quite work yet.
The fact is we're dealing with something relative here. Two bits of a Schrodinger wave front seen together, and emitted from exactly the same place, but one sent years later. That severely limits possible conclusions. Yes, there are still many, but of all the models tested none fit with the current cosmological model. Also very few fit with observation. The one that seems to do this most consistently is the one of Einsteins 1952 'infinitely many' discrete fields '..In relative motion.' This allows 'c' to always be local, as Lawrence says, the vector field to be dynamic, as Ted's, and it should be falsifiable. Complex caustics is the other possible area, but this cannot follow any logic or yet match any observation as it's really just extreme gravity well theory. There are others, including UFT etc, but, like cosmology, unfalsifiable. All other ideas gratefully received!
On red shift and increasing expansion I too am a skeptic. I recall doing a double take on the original calcs which seemed wrong to me, but I'm not a maths Guru! I've said this here before but not yet seen it refuted; Take a 2ft bit of elastic and mark the centre, hold one end by your eye and stretch it at a DECREASING rate. The end will move away (red shift) more than the centre. Now also consider that the light we see from the furthest point is from a few billion years earlier, so (as our elastic) the expansion rate will have been much faster then than now. That would give 2 substantial red shift increases even if the rate of expansion is slowing! My own 'guesstimate' would be that it's pretty constant, but hey... maths rules ok!
Peter
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 01:37 GMT
Peter,
The problem now is that you are talking about something other than real physics and cosmology. In effect you are raising up increasingly strained arguments to plead your case. The notion that redshifted galaxies and quasars are much more local has been essentially eliminated as a possbility.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 13:05 GMT
Hi Lawrence
True. - almost; I'm not talking about 'real cosmology' as I think that's a bit of a contradiction in terms, and it's certainly not current mainstream physics.
But 'Strained arguments'? No. You misunderstood my first line. I agree. The comparable is using current distance estimates. i.e. as Evelyn Gates etc. say, it's the current model that throws up the anomaly (or inconsistancy if you prefer). This is the same as the others; Pioneer, Voyager, Superluminal motion, Lunar ranging, Flyby etc. etc, and now WMAPS quadropolar asymmetry.
These are all really important for testing possible corrections to the cosmological model (or 'models'!). And yes, of course our revised models have to depart from 'current physics', that is after all the whole point!
What it really needs is for as many as possible to study these alternatives and comment on any inconsistencies (inconsisent with observation, NOT with 'current physics' or, worse still 'beliefs'). That's proper science! I'm not trying to 'plead' a case, but simply objectively test a postulate that I haven't yet been able to make fail. It's perhaps a little frustrating that no-one else has yet managed to do this with the DFM either. Or maybe that's good!?! Please by all means try, - but scientifically.
Peter
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 17:00 GMT
Lawrence,
And Inflation theory is real physics and cosmology? Or is it a fudge to correspond theory with observation?
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 14:08 GMT
I read with interest your posts but I can't understand some ideas about c.
We can't go more than this limit .
If the elctromagnetism exists, it is due to the gravity and all its superimposings implying synchronizations.
Thus c can decrease and can be polarised , but never the superluminal will be.
It is the gravity the secret because it is a modulator of evolution.The gravity polarises the light in fact .All the gravitational superimposings permit to the light to be in synchro.for the specificity of the gravitational systems.
It is logic in fact .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 23:38 GMT
Hi Steve
I'm reeally impressed - not a single spinning sphere!
Yes, 'c' absolutely constant - Locally. i.e. in and with respect to the frame it's propagating through (Einstein-Aether or whatever medium the field consists of).
That's where the anomaly of Superluminal gas jets arises, Messier 87 just being the closest of over 20, which Hubble recently confirmed at 6xC wrt our frame.
Till recently only heads in the sand and a few fumbling excuses of 'explanations'. But a dynamic vector field like Einstein Aether can have discrete reference frames in relative motion, so APPARENT superluminal motion, observed from another field, doesn't break the postulates of SR. All such observations will likely come from fast rotating black holes like M87.
Just imagine you're outside the galaxy watching it from an asteroid, and a wave front goes through it at 'c' (wrt the galaxy). But you're also moving at 0.5c the other way (wrt the galaxy). From your frame the wavefront will be doing 1.5c (unless Lorentz suddely shrinks the galaxy) but it's actually doing 'c', locally. The light 'signal' that reaches you from the wavefront in the galaxy also does so at 'c', as does the bit of the original wavefront signal itself that reaches you direct from the source.
If you check out Ted Jacobsons other papers on the arXiv you'll find mention of 'columnar' field structures here. It seems these may be accelerated fields within fields, formed from ions, continually sucked in and ejected by the extreme polar magnetic fields. But do check with Lawrence first as it may not be anomolous anyway so none of that may be needed.
I do hope you're well.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Peter,
One spinning sphere....I have already explained my fractal, finite and the number correlated with the numbers of cosmological spheres.
Thus the number is important .But it do not exist an infinity in this uniqueness like our Universe.Hope you understand better my model about the spheres and their rotations implying mass.Logically all spheres, quantics or cosmologics are linked in this logic if you know the velocity of rot of a sphere thus you know its mass .......incredible because the resulst imply more than c but it is not linear dear Peter, it is the gravity and its stability.
Now this speed is mre than c thjus if we correlate with two main sense, 1 for the linearity, and 1 for the stability, thus we have an unknown which can be synchronized with c .......an universal constant between spheres.
All spheres thus can be calculated .
The center and the frontier of our physicality thus implies two main senses for the light, the walls take all their senses thus.....hope you understand this universality.
If c is constant too for the rotating spheres of gravity thus it is the sense the key....
in the two senses, two possibilities, c constant for the linearity and the rotations or this speed can be more but there we must insert new parameter.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 00:39 GMT
The anomalies you cite are either nonexistent or not of great concern. The so called Pioneer anomaly does not occur with Voyager, which suggests an instrument effect. There are also some flyby anomalies as well, but they do not occur consistently, also suggesting an instrument effect. This could be due to a small pressure leak or some Newton’s 3 rd law effect from solar heating at a side that evaporates off polymers etc, or in the case of Pioneer maybe these craft have run into some tenuous gas that acts as a drag force. People are not going bonkers over these observations.
As for inflationary cosmology, so far all the predictions from it have been observed. It is not a complete theory, for the parameters are ‘free,” and the conditions involving inflationary reheating and the rest are predicted only within a range which the data falls within.
I really think people need to focus in on the real stuff as best as possible. It is harder, but more satisfying. I have a conjecture that technology on average makes us more stupid than smart. We have access to more information, but so much of that information is spurious or wrong. In previous ages information was printed and fairly expensive. Most people managed to read better writing and less of the piles of nonsense so endemic to our modern age.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 03:42 GMT
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf
An Einstein's birthday present to the seeker.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 16:20 GMT
Hi Lawrence.
I entirely agree that more technology makes some less smart.
But beware, lack of information is even more effective!
Take Voyager for instance, you say 'the Pioneer anomaly did not occur', but there are approaching 100 detailed papers on the many anomalies, from both Voyagers 1 and 2. An early overview is here;
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=940
Ot
her V2 data is just as new. i.e. the solar polarity reversal 'wave', changing from 13 days to over 100 at the heliosheaths dense particle bow shock. The only science that could fully explain this so far is common FM wave/particle interaction, which needs a 'medium' and absolute velocity. I can now tell you that ESA have also found this basis is essential. And, as with the quadropolar inconsistecy of WMAP, much of the work going on to clean up the Planck CMB picture has had to relate to 'cosmic dipole' signals, which is the activity caused by our motion with respect to the background CM field.
Check the (very) latest release referring to this at; http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=
46706
This only scratches the information surface Lawrence. And it is 'the real stuff'. Sure, ignorance is bliss, if bliss is what we want, but the more good evidence we use the safer the conclusions. Using 'beleifs' is another way, but personally I prefer science. Sure, we're not going bonkers, but we also need to remember we don't 'know it all'. ('1,000th of 1%' according to Einstein).
You should be aware your last posts have sounded a little like the guy in the late 1800's who declared that science was all sorted and people who were looking at anomalies were wasting their time as there was no more left to discover!
Karl Popper said mankind needs to be able to challenge ruling paradigms to survive. I we all consider him wrong.. he may just be proved right!
Last quotes, AE again; "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has it's own reason for existence". and..on Relativity in 1944; "I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find." (in a little known letter to Max Born in 1944).
So.. do you reeally still think it's all sorted?!
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 00:44 GMT
None of this really changes much with the nature of gravity, relativity or inflationary cosmology. I don't honestly track this stuff much, and what I know about this these orbital shifts are some sort of physical effect of drag or some sort of interaction with tenuous gas.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 13:55 GMT
I'm not quite sure what happened to the rest of my last post Lawrence. I suspect a dyed in the wool relativist hijacked it!
I think you're essentially correct. The orbital 'shock' wave is a physical drag effect related to 'some sort of interaction with tenuous gas'. But what it does undeniably show is that the planet is in motion through such a 'medium' at rest wrt the sun.
Let's now consider for a moment. I believe Einstein, Lee Smolin, Roger Penrose, Ted Jacobson, Petr etc are all correct. There is something fundamentally wrong with physics and it needs some kind of unified field theory.
You seem to be saying it's all actually fine! or We, or I, shouldn't bother to search. If that's not what your saying please clarify.
If we ARE allowed to look, we must define what we're looking for. How about something the unifies SR with QFT, Reality with Locality, matches all observation, and resolves a few anomolies and paradoxes for good measure. Would that be a fair target?
So let's think ahead; Lets say someone eventually finds a model that seems to work at all levels and passes all initial tests. By definition the physics would have to change the ruling paradigms. Do you think everyone on first seeing it would immediately actually study it, and say, "wow! well done, ..at last!"
How would YOU respond?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 16:34 GMT
Ooops, sorry, it'd logged me out!, Yes, that was me above Lawrence.
There's something funny going on with the posts at present. Is it the new response system Brendan?
And thanks Steve. Keep up the research, and never give up hope of your own eureka moment, and your sciences centre. But, and maybe I know from experience, ..if you want to convince someone you're not 'crazzy' you'd have to try to assess how he thinks and harmonise your own brain wave frequencies with his. (that's wave particle interaction!).
It'd probably take a genius!!
Keep well.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 18:25 GMT
Je suis fatigué Peter, Las de ces années de malheur.
Je suis fatigué de ce monde, fatigué de ces conneries .
Je suis isolé dans 100 m² de maison et 120 m² de jardin.
Parfois je me dis , ben prennez moi Père tout puissant prenez moi et enlevez moi de cette planète.
Je suis fatigué Peter tout simplement d'années de problèmes et malheurs, d'années d'incompréhension, d'années de critiques et autres.
J'en ai marre tout simplement.
Mes pas s'enlisent et mes souflles sont fatigués,je ne fais que survivre en fait ....croyez vous que je crois encore à mon bonheur , je suis las et encore las , je mérite cette reconnaissance de ma théorie de la sphérisation ,et vous savez je m'en fous en fait c'est dingue hein et c'est ainsi ....ce qui compte à mes yeux est ce centre scientifique car là ce n'est pas ma petite et humble personne qui en dépend mais bien les oubliés du système, affamés , sans eau ni médicament ...le reste n'est que vain .
Convaincre n'est point mon but car je sais que la sphérisation est universelle et qu'il y a un but harmonique pour les vies ........c'est celà qui est important, qui sommes nous à part des bébés de l'Univers créés avec amour .....
Amicalement Peter et sincèrement
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 19:33 GMT
Rester fort Steve. Mon français est des déchets mais je ferai l'effort ;
Oui, l'état de la communauté scientifique m'inquiète aussi. Mais ce n'est qu'un reflet de la condition humaine, et le c'est jusqu'à nous tous d'essayer de l'améliorer.
J'ai un pholosophy quand je tombe sur les idiots. J'essaierai d'aider ouvert leurs yeux si je peux, mais aussi essayer de découvrir et apprécier qu'ils peuvent faire bien. Et toujours je remercie mes étoiles heureuses ils sont des idiots, parce que s'ils étaient tous génies je serais l'idiot !
Vous avez eu une vie dure si éloigné, mais rappeler 2 choses ; il y a toujours ces pire de que vous, pensez de tous vous pouvez. Et ; votre destinée est dans vos propres mains, howver beaucoup de lui ne peut pas semble si.
Mon conseil sur votre théorie ? Vous le voulez ? Je le donnerai de toute façon. Il a une partiellement bonne base mais le bon ce sont le même comme très BEAUCOUP D'unfalsifiable les AUTRES idées. Lâcher le dogme et le retour à la méthode scientifique correcte. Rassembler de la preuve plus large éloignée, tomber n'importe quelle partie qui n'est pas falsifiable, développer un nombre de modèles et les essayer entièrement. Si vous aimez le que les maths essaient cela, mais nos esprits sont potentiellement éloignés plus puissants que juste les nombres. Vous pouvez trouver une version une modifiée subitement crises parfaitement dans le grand complexe 3D énigme de puzzle.
Si vous ne ceci faites pas vos théories seront considérées sans valeur. En fait même si vous faites, et le c'est correct, il prendra un intellegence rare et spécial pour reconnaître cela, et alors un autre quart d'un siècle pour changer un paradigme ! Ne pas prévoir des miracles, mais ne jamais renoncer.
J'ai une devise ; « j'ai la force de dix hommes comme je suis pur dans le coeur » Vous pouvez l'emprunter si vous souhaitez !
Egards les plus sincères
Pierre
(PS. I think we'd better now revert to english!)
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 17:57 GMT
Hmm. As always Lawrence, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You say;
"None of this really changes much with the nature of gravity, relativity or inflationary cosmology. I don't honestly track this stuff much, and what I know about this these orbital shifts are some sort of physical effect of drag or some sort of interaction with tenuous gas."
Some complain when others don't see their viewpoint. I say 'Vive la difference'. It's good that most are happy with the physics we have, but it's also essential that a few are not. Scientific progress can only ever be made by the latter small minority with vision.
We must all have beliefs, but the biggest danger to science is when those who haven't bothered to get their knowledge up to scratch don't recognise that fact, and rely on those beleifs - then tell those that HAVE bothered that they're talking nonsense!
I'm sure you can see that if they got their way our future would be sealed.
And yes. Every bit of progress in fundamental science invariably "changes much." Consequential effects are the life blood of progress. But we can only ever guess how exciting each change may be.
We may even, at any time, be discussing superluminal motion or anti gravity, unless everybody believes what he knows is all there is. Petr Horava is one of the latter few. Are you?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 19:48 GMT
Peter,
You are fighting against the information-tunneling problem. As a man goes down an information path, he makes choices in the direction that he takes as opposed to other possible choices that he could have made. Choices are often mutually exclusive such that to chose one direction means to reject others. If one has traveled down a given path for many years, it is much easier to...
view entire post
Peter,
You are fighting against the information-tunneling problem. As a man goes down an information path, he makes choices in the direction that he takes as opposed to other possible choices that he could have made. Choices are often mutually exclusive such that to chose one direction means to reject others. If one has traveled down a given path for many years, it is much easier to continue in that familiar path even if it is an invalid path than to change to a new valid path. It often means giving up long held beliefs and admitting that many years of work were wasted. (Often much less is wasted than appears to be on the surface because the invalid path may have lead to technical advances that later show it to not be completely valid. Many invalid paths are based on approximate visualizations that stand until a more accurate visualization replaces it. In addition, the development of logical thought and other abilities that are acquired in the process of following in an invalid path can give one the ability to advance faster down a better replacement path if the change is made.) In addition to the waste of time fear, is the fear of being seen as a failure in the eyes of ones peers. The higher one is up in the social, political, and work structure of the predominate current belief system, the greater this fear tends to be because not only does one fear being rejected by his peers, but one could also lose highly prestigious positions and, or funding sources, so one’s livelihood can be greatly affected if the current belief system changes greatly. There are many things in the current structure of the scientific community that tend to generate these and other fears and cause loss or at least lack of gain to any that diverge from the present accepted path, so it is not hard to understand why you get a deaf ear when you present any new concept that does not fit exactly into the preferred path direction at that time. You will find only a few established scientists that have a strong enough desire to know the truth that they are willing to take on the analysis of new data that appears to be contradictory to present theory and are willing to give up current beliefs if the data presents a better new path to proceed down than the currently accepted one. It usually falls to the new scientists in the field to start out in bold new divergent paths. The structure of the current scientific community makes that much harder than it should be, however, so fewer new scientists are willing to buck the system than in some past times and hopefully for man’s sake in some future times.
Many of the things that you are talking about are more easily understood once basic sub-energy concepts are understood. Sub-energy particles do not possess a fifth vector velocity, so they do not have rest mass like that in matter particles and they do not have a fourth vector velocity, so they do not have the frequency, wavelength, and variable ninety degree angular dynamic mass effects of energy photons. Their only mass effect is a very small effect in line with their direction of travel due to their sub-light composite three-dimensional velocity in some direction. The angular motion of a matter particle in its enclosed three-dimensional path tends to channel sub-energy particles into paths around it. This channeling effect is important to a deeper understanding of charge transfer mechanisms and energy transfer mechanisms in general. As an example, under certain circumstances a matter particle can interact with a sub-energy particle in such a way that it transfers motion to it. This motion increases the sub-energy particle’s three-dimensional composite velocity to greater than the speed of light. The amount of motion that would be greater than the speed of light is induced into the fourth vector (dimension) changing the sub-energy particle into an energy photon. They can also take part in the generation of matter particles if the transferred motion is great enough and the proper angular motion components are present to generate fifth vector motion transfer. Sub-energy particles can interact directly with energy photons under certain circumstances with a net effect of slightly decreasing the photons fourth vector velocity. This results in a slight reduction in the photon’s frequency and peak dynamic mass effects and a slight increase in its wavelength. This red shift tends to vary directly with the distance that the photon has traveled because of the increased number of such interactions it will likely experience with travel through increased distance. Because of the small probability of interaction and the very small variation in fourth vector velocity due to an interaction, this effect is generally only observable in photons that have traveled great distances. This information can be of help to you in development of your ether theory if you can make the proper connections.
I wish you well in that endeavor.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 00:55 GMT
There is a bit of a mixing of ideas. The Hovra aether here is not the pre-Einsteinian aether. Secondly the spacecraft data, particularly Pioneer anomaly, is not controlled such that anything can really concluded.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 25, 2010 @ 13:35 GMT
Lawrence
You say; "The Hovra aether here is not the pre-Einsteinian aether". Nor is that of Einstein Ether theory or the DFM Lawrence.
I assume you mean something like Maxwells 'all pervading' model? But let's consider what we really know about them that's important.
1) They represent the background field/3rd Frame we've always known exists.
2) The latter, including Ted's modification, are dynamic vector tensor fields, the DFM Barycentric, related in conceptual form and scale to magnetospheres.
Yes, there are subtle differences between the models, the DFM derived more from AOE and, so far, being 100% predictive and unrefuted. The point here is that it needs more proper scientific testing NOT just opinion based only on beliefs!! That's called "religion".
Voyagers 1 and 2 have filled in much detail we didn't get from Pioneer. I agree, it's always dangerous to draw conclusions, that's why we construct and test postulates and models to test against all the KNOWN data, which is now quite vast.
None of the previous ones work, and most of the subsequent ones are either limited assumptions, not really models, or work little better all round. I've tested plenty. Just one has stood out miles above the rest with 100% test results in all areas, and providing explanations for all anomalous data. - Discrete dynamic barycentric fields with wave-particle boundary interaction (FM).
Are you saying we shouldn't bother trying to falsify it with more testing??
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 26, 2010 @ 00:23 GMT
Horava's theory involves a breaking of the Lorentz group by the vacuum. This means the symmetries of the Lagrangian for a system are reduced on a vacuum state. I don’t happen to think this system is likely. There are things to be said for solid state analogues with spacetime physics, but the lattice is also subject to the symmetries of the fields, analogous to electrons or phonons in Brillouin zones. This results in a noncommutative geometry, which physically induces a quantum torsion connection and tiny corrections on curvatures. These curvature corrections are similar to the R + α’R^{ab}R_{ab} + … Lagrangian in string theory. In doing this there is no, or at least there should be no, breaking of the Lorentz group.
The problem with what you are suggesting is that it borders on quasi-physics. The terms you are using, such as “discrete dynamic barycentric field,” are not standard particularly, or at least most of what you allude to are not matters of concerns with physics foundations.
The Pioneer anomalies and other things can be overviewed
here, where this strange ephemiris in the spacecraft motion is likely due to at least one of a number of rather mundane effects.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 12:52 GMT
Hi Lawrence
You've summed up the problem well. We're here because there are fundamental issues with current mainstream physics, yet if the key to a solution is ever found it will be written off as it isn't mainstream, or "borders on 'quasi-physics'." and uses unfamiliar terms and concepts.
It would surely have to do that by definition Lawrence! Science mustn't judge things against beleif sytems, or concepts we well know may be false. That means we have to search for new concepts, and test them. Agreed?
I'm a little suprised you cited Wiki as evidence to disprove the full NASA etc. reviewed papers I prefer to use! Indeed if you read the Wiki text it does touch on the "mundane" phenomina examined and logically assessed in the model. Many of the 'Unexplained phenomina' listed in Wiki are also explained.
I quite understand the description of discrete dynamic barycentric field is unfamiliar. It's actually very close to Ted Jacobsons derivation of Petr's proposal, which I agree is not quite correct. The concept is however familiar, examples of such fields is indeed close to gravitational and magnetic fields, in dynamic motion with the planet round the sun, etc. Barycentric is more accurate than geocentric, as we're at once also in the sun and moons fields, except that is where the difference comes, the DFM field does not overlap but is discrete, the planetary/cosmic shocks being the boundary zones where EM waves are doppler shifted to always preserve 'c' locally.
Einsteins 1952 term; "Infinitely many (fields) in relative motion" was absolutely correct. But it seems you're right. Too many people know better, so it'll never have the chance to be studied or properly tested. C'est la vie.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 24, 2010 @ 22:43 GMT
Hi Paul
Thanks for your support. Good to see you here, and great to find there's more intelligent life! I loved your essay as it was in a similar vein to mine, that only we ourselves are the limiting factor. A much underrated truth.
I quite like your sub-energy concept. You'll be aware it seems consistent with the DFM, but I'll have to learn and consider it more if I'm to build it in. Let me have any links (and I'll give you mine!)
As important is your 1st paragraph. I've been considering how on earth we change ruling paradigms. My initial vision was very close to yours; We've been following a jungle path, getting deeper and deeper, a while ago the path ran out and we're hacking through impassible undergrowth. The group has basically split into two who've lost touch, but now it's every man for himself, all desperately hacking individually, hanging on to their own version of which way to go.
I decided to bail out and re-trace our footsteps. Eventually I found where the path split. George Stokes & Co couldn't refute some nonsense on stellar aberration, and the wrong path was followed. I found the right path, a nice fast clear one, but in a totally different direction. In fact when Einstein was trying to close the gap between Reality and Copenhagen he was looking the wrong way. - the answer was MORE reality! I've now reached our goal, a wide open sunny land where everything is clear, simple and comprehensible. But those other guys would never loose the belief they're almost there, so will never find it.
The odd straggler has found the path and joined me, someone said they saw Petr Horava and a small group a few clicks away. Maybe he's turned in the right direction. We've lit a fire, and I shall just keep quietly shouting.
Have you got your head round the FM bit yet? That's a bit of a leap from false reality, but worth it.
Very best wishes.
Peter
PS. To mix metaphores, I think the only answer may be a unified rally to the flag and invincible weapon of a consistent SR alternative to take on the troglodites in a concerted battle. It may be a bit of a disparate bunch, but care to consider joining up?
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 16:45 GMT
Peter,
Support is what I am here for. I hope it is the kind that will be acceptable to you. It won’t be so, to many, especially the science clones who look at the current science fad and look for a little shelf in the tunnel in which to build a new side offshoot. My purpose is not to give a ready made new science revelation to man, but to see if man is capable of developing one himself...
view entire post
Peter,
Support is what I am here for. I hope it is the kind that will be acceptable to you. It won’t be so, to many, especially the science clones who look at the current science fad and look for a little shelf in the tunnel in which to build a new side offshoot. My purpose is not to give a ready made new science revelation to man, but to see if man is capable of developing one himself and if so, to give basic beginning concepts that can be expounded upon to allow for the development of a new revelation of the way the world is constructed and works that over a period of a couple hundred years will lead to a great increase in man’s abilities to control the world around him. Of course, like all increases in power it can be used for either good or evil and it will undoubtedly be used to one degree or another for both, so the introduction of the knowledge is not necessarily a predictor of a better world or for that matter neither does it predestinate a worse one. It will be up to man to decide that. It will be a different one, however. We are not our only limiting factor. We can only work incrementally from what has been observed and learned before us. The trick is to learn to discern the true information from the false and to always keep one’s mind open to all the data and continually look in all directions for new understandings. One should not be satisfied with learning how something works, but must also work to understand why it works that way and be willing to completely give up previous beliefs and understandings if observations suggest that it is necessary. It is always best to periodically go back to the beginning and look at the world again from the basics on up in the light of the new observational discoveries (data) that have been made.
The sub-energy concept comes from one such trip back to basic concepts of the behavior of energy and matter that led to a deeper understanding of the structure of the world and how that structure works. It is just an inevitable part of the way things are made. I prefer to work with each person directly rather than through links to prewritten material. My concern is not to produce information clones, but to produce the ability to develop the concepts directly.
Good analogy.
Many wrong turns have been made over a long period of time. You have the right idea of retracing back on the paths, but I found that it was necessary to retrace all the way back to the beginning (climb all the way out of the rabbit hole) and start over using the updated observational data that was not available to those who previously took those paths at the time that they took them. To this I added something that most scientists tend to like to stay away from and some even think to be unscientific, which is the question (Why?) followed by the question (What?). Most scientists are content with trying to answer the question (How?) How does it work? They spend much time looking at the numbers and their relationships to each other, so that they can try to predict the next step in the chain of numbers. It is like a man desiring to get a better understanding of his car, so he checks and finds out that when driving on flat ground a certain amount of depression on the accelerator yields a certain acceleration which brings the car’s speed up to a certain level where it then stays as long as the peddle is kept in the same position. He notices that if he drives the car that way over a period of time the amount of gas in the gas tank decreases at a specific rate per unit of time and is happy that he has found this important relationship. He calls it his gallons per hour theory and quickly follows that up by observing that he travels a certain distance in that same period of time, so now he has his miles per hour theory. In a brilliant moment of insight he connects the two theories together to come up with the miles per gallon theory. By now he is extraordinarily happy with his achievements. Then someone asks him why do those things work that way and what is behind the scenes that generates those effects? His immediate answer is, that is not a scientific question. Science is only concerned with how it works. The why and what questions are for the philosophers to answer. This answer, of course, saves him much time and a lot of work trying to intelligently answer those questions. That would require some logical thought and might not be able to be arrived at by using only the numbers that he has available at the time. He might have to look deeper and actually do new observations to be sure he gets the best answer that he can to those questions. Even then he may only gain a visualization of how it could logically work and may not be able to prove that it actually works that way and he may even be completely wrong. Of course, if he had looked at science history, he would have seen that even those visualizations of things such as the structure of the atom that were lacking or even completely wrong led to tests of those visualizations that then led to better new more accurate visualizations and understandings of why the things that were observed were the way that they were observed and what behind the scenes mechanisms caused them to come out that way.
My approach (path) was to start from the most basic structures that make up at least most of the world that we observe (energy photons and matter particles) and as I looked at the basic observed attributes of those structures I begin by asking why the observational data was as it was and what structure was behind the scenes that generated the observed results. One of the most basic things that needed to be explained was the observation that energy can change into matter and matter can change into energy. This meant that they were both just different manifestations of a more basic entity. One of the keys to the answer to what that more basic entity is, came from another observation about matter, which was that when two slow moving matter particles collide, they will just tend to bounce off of each other, but when their motion is increased to near the speed of light, the collision causes several new particles to be produced. It was obvious that the new particles were created from the added motion since that was all that was added. This along with other observations led to the visualization that motion itself is the basic entity from which all other entities are formed. It is the only thing that is truly conserved of itself. Of course, matter particles and energy photons do not behave the same in every way and the differences had to be explained, but this was not difficult if these entities have motions that exist in other places than the first three dimensions. It only takes possible motions in two more dimensions to explain those differences. The motion in one of those dimensions causes the frequency, wavelength, and variable dynamic mass effects of energy photons and also similar effects in matter particles, while the motion in the other dimension (only matter particles have this motion) causes the rest mass in matter particles due to the angular motion components that it generates as it causes an energy photon to take a curved path that causes its path to become and enclosed three dimensional closed path to generate the matter particle. This enclosed path particle can then stay in one place in three-dimensional space even though it is still traveling at great speed around that path. More details had to be added as to how these motions accomplish these things, but that is also not that difficult, especially in the case of the first one mentioned above. These details have to do mostly with the structure of the two new dimensions and how they interface with the first three dimensions. From this followed the concept that entities could exist that only have motions in the first three dimensions and thus the sub-energy concept was born. This new concept greatly aided in the explanation of energy transfer and charge mechanisms, etc. It also has much to do with the structure of the mechanism of gravity, but I will not go into that now as that is for a later time.
Ah yes, frequency modulation (FM). I listen to some FM stations from time to time. Your right its much more real than AM. I love how people so often use such mnemonics apparently thinking that it makes it easier to understand what they are talking about than if they just gave the complete name that usually actually at least partially explains the meaning that they are trying to get across. Of course, it may just be that it is easier to write the 2 letters than the whole name, but it adds to the confusion of those who have not yet come across the specific meaning that you are talking about for that mnemonic. If I get my head around it, wouldn’t the center of gravity be at the center of my head? Of course, then if my ego is also located at the center of my head (ego centric (EC)) one would have to consider whether it was due to the effects of gravity, thus generating the whole new field of GEC or is that ECG.
The alternative should be able to explain both SR and QM effects and it can because both are limited structures that do not utilize the whole structure of reality. My kingdom is not of this world, but I will work with you if you desire and try to help you if I can.
Peace.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 11:18 GMT
Thanks Paul
It seems you're already being proved right about 'science clones', if proof were needed. Most still need the courage to let go of 100yr old thinking to allow the odd foray to really gain new perspectives.
If we can talk a little more about FM, which we use a lot;
It's at the heart of wave/particle interaction. The simplified conventional viewpoint is that EM waves get messed about after transmission, and transmitters and receivers move, which affects frequency (Doppler shifts). In radios, single particle oscillators are set at the transmission frequency. They receive messy EM waves and clean them up by shifting them back to the original frequency, transmission wave velocity 'c' being the fixed reference.
Now think of this in a different way, and consider; If a spacecraft is returning to earth at 100miles/sec. it receives our communications 'blue shifted', as the arrival frequency is effectively greater than it would be. Oscillators can only emitt EM waves at 'c'. What they therefore actually do is receive EM waves at ANY effective velocity and Doppler shift them to emitt at 'c'.
So now consider what would happen if we had a thick shock of oscillating particles moving through a heliosphere, say, for arguments sake, ahead of a large 'dragged ether' field around some mass, say a planet. EM waves would travel at 'c' wrt the 'background' Heliospheric space, then hit the shock particles, be blue shifted, and travel past the planet at 'c' wrt the planet.
And yes, the oscillating particles have to be condensed from a sub- or dark energy field with density and frequency proportional to relative velocity.
Now think carefully about the possible implications of that simple new viewpoint for a while.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 23:59 GMT
The foundations of physics contain an obstruction. I think one development in removing this obstruction is the holographic principle. The obstruction removed here is the standard notion of what is meant by an event or particle at a certain location, where the implications of holography are rather strange and require one to abandon certain constructions. I think a further development requires the removal of the idea there is a unique S-matrix description of quantum gravitational processes or the causal propagation of events. There is instead a whole modular system of S-matrices. I don't want to belabor that particularly here, and a part of the reason is that this requires a different way of thinking that is not easily imparted in a short blog post.
When it comes to classical relativity theory, the simple fact is that as a classical theory, large in scale and with a gravity g
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 1, 2010 @ 00:01 GMT
oops, the carrot sign problem --- so to continue
g much less than 1/L_p, is the correct theory or effective theory. There is not going to be some reversal of relativity theory, any more than there is going to be some reversal of biological evolution in favor of a divine creation idea.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 11:34 GMT
Certainly not 'reversal' Lawrence, but absolutely certainly a fine tuning or improvement of parts of Relativity. Possibly the parts that we haven't yet observed (contraction?) and still give rise to controversies over paradox, sagnac etc, and maintain the divide with QFT, i.e. SR's Equivalence.
Is your system of S-matrices not similar in some ways to Einsteins 1954 'infinitely many spaces in relative motion'. (- shortly after he said we needed that 'different way of thinking').
This would confirm SR and Lorentz invarience 'Locally', which is precisely what we observe, Locality being what Einstein was forced to give up by Bohm & Bell to preserve Reality.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 4, 2010 @ 18:22 GMT
Some of the questions that a good theory should have credible answers for that are connected to a structural reality that corresponds to observations are:
Why does it appear that there is a maximum velocity (C) and what is the mechanism that causes it?
Why can matter travel at any velocity from zero to about that maximum velocity (has a continuously variable multi-amplitude velocity function), but energy has a single amplitude velocity function and what mechanism causes these things to work that way?
Why is energy’s single motion amplitude level equal to the maximum level (C) and not some other value and what is its cause?
Why does matter have a rest mass/inertia effect while energy only has a much smaller dynamically variable mass effect and what is the structure that causes these things?
Why does energy possess its frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects and why are they locked into the specific structural relationship so that an increase in frequency generates a decrease in wavelength and an increase in dynamic mass effect so that all photons with a specific frequency will have the same specific wavelength and dynamic mass effects and what mechanism causes it to work this way?
Why do some very fast and very small scale interactions such as collisions between matter particles cause not just a single outcome, but have a range of outcomes that have different probabilities of happening and what mechanism causes it to work this way?
Why does energy travel at the maximum velocity (C) and has very little mass effect and can have any size (wavelength), but when the velocity of matter is increased to near (C), its mass greatly increases, so that it would be infinitely great at (C) and its volume greatly decreases so that it would be zero at (C) and what is the cause of this effect?
Why are some matter particles stable while others decay into other particles and/or energy photons in a short time and why is the decay time different for different particles? What causes this to be this way?
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 09:17 GMT
Hello,
Think about spheres dear Paul, you shall see more clear and you shall have answers.....don't complicate the simplicity.
Respectfull
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 12:56 GMT
Hi Paul
Good list. I'm sure you have some answers, Can I postulate a few for you to correct?
Q; Why does it appear that there is a maximum velocity (C) and what is the mechanism that causes it? (and why 'C').
There must be a limit to the oscillation rate of whatever is oscillating.
Q; Why can matter travel at any velocity from zero to about that maximum velocity..(.but energy only at 'C')?
All motion is only relative. Perhaps there are 3 basic states Background(sub?) energy, kinetic energy, and 'mass' energy.
Q; Why does matter have a rest mass/inertia effect.. Quantum gyroscopics?
Q; Why does energy possess its frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects and why are they locked into the specific structural relationship so that an increase in frequency..etc.
Each wave represents an amount of energy, cram them together...?
Q; Why do some very fast and very small scale interactions such as collisions between matter particles cause not just a single outcome, but have a range of outcomes that have different probabilities of happening and what mechanism causes it to work this way?
Waves. i.e. constant change, - It depends on what the angle/hight/density is at the interaction point.
Q; Why does energy travel at the maximum velocity (C) and has very little mass effect and can have any size (wavelength), but when the velocity of matter is increased to near (C), its mass greatly increases...etc?
Particles condensed from the energy field from excitation due to relative motion.
Q; Why are some matter particles stable while others decay into other particles and/or energy photons in a short time and why is the decay time different for different particles? What causes this to be this way?
Pass. I suspect 'decay' may not be the best description of a 'phase change'. Or perhaps it's 'Spheres'? - or we don't have to worry about Causality.
How about another; Why do we find EM waves doing 'c' irrespective of the motion of both the emitter and receiver? and why can't we unify SR and QFT.
Perhaps because wave energy is absorbed by local oscillators and re-emitted (Doppler shifted) to always do 'c' locally?
Any horrors there?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 23:24 GMT
Paul,
You need to read a basic text on relativity. The speed of light does not act in a causal fashion, but is a symmetry of spacetime.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 06:44 GMT
Time is not part of the space, quantum space is timeless. There is no need to introduce ether back into physics, as it is a wrong concept. There is no fluid filling up cosmic space. Cosmic space is an energy field that can be accurately described with quantum space. Quantum space has a density that correlates with given amount of matter in a given volume of quantum space. Density of space determinates its curvature. Density of quantum space explains gravity without hypothetical gravitational waves. See more on file attached.
yours amrit
attachments:
Original_Solution_of_Gravity.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 12:11 GMT
Hi Amrit
Please explain, if quantum space is timeless, what happens when a planet passes close by, and properties locally change, then change back again? How can there can be sequence, change, or even quantum motion without time to measure it by?
I read your paper. The 'density variation' thesis is certainly one of the most intuitive and popular, but you don't seem to address the basic 'inverse Boyles Law' issue, shed any new light on the quantum mechnism, or get any closer to falsifiability. Addressing these points is where the value will lie.
But the only poor concept comes in denying an 'ether' while proposing an energy field, which I suspect is political. Ether is now what ether does. It IS an energy field, but call it what you wish. The old 'all pervading' ether of Maxwell was originally updated by Fresnel. My own ether seems now the most common, a 'dark energy' field medium, a background 3rd frame. EM waves can only have an absolute speed 'c' wrt this. Fizeau, Sagnac, M&M, Miller, Wang, all also witness this and will always be a thorn in the side of any 'non ether' theory of Equivalence. That's where the ultimate unification solution must lie; a quantum Equivalence mechanism. with both Locality and Reality.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Amrit wrote on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 20:46 GMT
Peter,
my idea of density of quantum space will be developed by my research group.
We will publish results in peer reviewed journal, so you will know.
Regardig that universe is timeless, see my article on file attached.
Yours Amrit
attachments:
2_Physical_Time_Is_Run_Of_Clocks__Quantum_Dream.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 14:17 GMT
Hi Amrit
I wish you luck and look forward to your paper. I gather the Peer review journals are now publishing less than 1 in 100, so are unfortunately far from representative. It may help if you check a little closer for typographical/ linguistic errors, it would be better to use 'tick', as 'thick' can mean unintellegent! This includes in your first reference; "What makes us thick."
I note no refutation of my point on bringing back 'ether' as a quantum field - which is of course central to this article.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 05:40 GMT
Steve,
I have thought about spheres. Every point on or in a rotating sphere generally follows a two-dimensional enclosed path (except possibly the center points). The structural point of a matter particle follows a three-dimensional enclosed path. It is a somewhat more complex path structure. The simplicity is just a little more complicated in some cases. Spheres are important...
view entire post
Steve,
I have thought about spheres. Every point on or in a rotating sphere generally follows a two-dimensional enclosed path (except possibly the center points). The structural point of a matter particle follows a three-dimensional enclosed path. It is a somewhat more complex path structure. The simplicity is just a little more complicated in some cases. Spheres are important structures. They are a demonstration of entropy balance, as an example, but they are not the ultimate importance in the universe, as you seem to think. There are many shapes and forms in the universe and they all explain things to us about the structure and interactions of the world that we live in. I suggest that you widen your horizons. The earth is somewhat of a sphere, but if it was a perfect sphere and we were parts of it we would not be able to move or do anything other than to follow the motion of the sphere as a whole if there was such motion because any deviation from that motion would leave an imperfection in the sphere in the place that we were once in and we would also be another imperfection in it unless we left the sphere altogether. That is considering that it would even be possible for us to possess the energy to independently move at all from our initial position. Much of our ability to live and do things on the earth is due to the imperfections of our sphere. A perfect sphere where every particle in it possessed the exact amount of energy to allow it to continue in that position in the sphere to maintain the perfection of the sphere would be a place that would not support life. We live off of the flow of motion from a low state of entropy toward a higher state of entropy. We could not live in a perfect state of entropy or for that matter we also could not live in a perfect state of zero entropy because we could not extract the energy from such a system to power our life systems. We can only live where there is a flow from low to high entropy and we can tap into it and extract the energy (motion) that we need to allow us to live and move and interact with the world in the way that we desire. A perfect sphere is not such a place.
Lawrence,
OK. Why is that symmetry that way and what is the structure that generates it? Why does the symmetry generate or equal that particular velocity as opposed to some other velocity? What behind the scenes structure makes it to be such and not another? As an example, left/right or up/down symmetry results in part from the bi-directional nature of the lower three dimensions in this world that allows a motion or position in one direction of one of these dimensions to be complemented by an equal motion or position in the opposite direction of that dimension. It would not be possible to have motion symmetry of this type in unidirectional dimensions, so the type of structure of these dimensions allows the generation of this type of symmetry. This is not a complete description as one would also need to cover the structure of motion, etc. also, but it gives a beginning point.
Peter
I just saw your comment as I was about to send this one, but I do not have time to answer it at this time. I will get back to you as soon as I can.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 09:39 GMT
Dear Paul,
Interesting point of vue.
But you don't insert the evolution.
Thus you are not right simply.
The complexity is in the biological lifes.....
I don't understand why you are always sure in fact, have you conclusions, No .
Have you datas, No
Are you right No evidently because simply it's an other parameter which is in your interpretation of the Universe.
The Spherization is an evolutive point of vue .And thus the ^perfect spheer are in the uniqueness.Thus only the future universal sphere will be a perfect sphere and too the quantum uniqueness is perfects spheres.
I think you analyze localy simply, and you don't see the time evolution thus you don't see the real globality.
Thus you are not right but you can improve your interpretation and thusd your universality if you analyze all centers of interests in fact .
You live on a sphere, you think and see with spheres and spheroids, you are composed by spheres, your light is a sphere, your turn around a sphere, you are inside an universal sphere ....and you search still some explainations without realism .....Be more rational simply and accept the evolution .
You are not right Paul ,you are not right .
Frankly and sphericaly yours
Steve
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 17:26 GMT
Hi Peter,
Yes “thick” should be “tick”. With introducing idea of space being out of quanta, the believe of space-time being a fundamental arena of the universe has no theoretical basis any more. How time can be 4-th dimension of a quanta ? Definitely cosmic space is timeless. My research group introduces density of space that is defined with amount of matter in a given volume of space. Density of space is defining its curvature. Material bodies move into direction of lover density of space. Gravitational waves are fictitious entities.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 22:27 GMT
Peter,
All photons regardless of frequency travel at the same speed of C, so the oscillation rate or frequency is not connected directly to the photon’s velocity in the first three dimensions and so far man does not have any reason to believe that there really is a maximum frequency. The oscillation rate is determined by the photon’s fourth vector (dimensional) velocity and man has no...
view entire post
Peter,
All photons regardless of frequency travel at the same speed of C, so the oscillation rate or frequency is not connected directly to the photon’s velocity in the first three dimensions and so far man does not have any reason to believe that there really is a maximum frequency. The oscillation rate is determined by the photon’s fourth vector (dimensional) velocity and man has no information at this time that would suggest that it is limited to C or any other maximum velocity.
You a very close here. The sub-energy is (as described in my previous post to you) an entity that only has some sub-light three-dimensional composite motion. The energy photon also has a fourth vector velocity because at some point its three dimensional composite motion was increased to a point where it would exceed the speed of light, which is the induction point of motion into the fourth dimension. This induction works in both directions, so if the photon were to interact in such a way that its three dimensional composite velocity were to be decreased below the C velocity there would be an induced transfer of motion from the fourth vector back into its three-dimensional composite motion to restore it to C. This creates an effective velocity servomechanism to maintain the C velocity. Such a transfer would reduce its fourth vector velocity thus lowering its frequency and dynamic mass effect and would increase its wavelength. The matter particle also has a fifth vector velocity because at some point an energy photon that possessed a high enough fourth vector velocity to exceed the fifth vector motion transfer threshold had an interaction that generated the angular motion component necessary for fifth vector motion transfer allowing transfer of some of its fourth vector velocity into the fifth vector. This fifth vector velocity causes the curvature of the photon’s path in the first three dimensions so that it closes back upon itself to create a three-dimensional enclosed path. The matter particle is this enclosed path. The photon is still traveling at a high velocity around the path, but the path can stand still (have zero kinetic energy) allowing it to have a zero three-dimensional composite velocity. An interaction can cause a disturbance in the path structure that effectively causes the path to gain a composite three-dimensional motion (gain kinetic energy). As this motion is increased toward the speed of light a portion of this extra motion is transferred to the particle’s fifth vector velocity, which increases its curvature, which decreases its volume. The extra angular motion component generated also increases its mass effect. The closer the particle’s velocity gets to the speed C, the greater percentage of any new added velocity is transferred to the fifth vector, so that at the speed C all new added velocity is transferred to the fifth vector. There is more to it than that, but I am not giving detailed fifth vector concepts at this time and what has been given is adequate to pass on the basic concepts. Just keep in mind that it is an approximation and reality is more complex than that. Altogether there could be said to be three basic motions. First, there is the three-dimensional composite motion that is less than C in sub-energy particles, equal to C in energy photons generally less than C in matter particles. Second, there is the fourth vector motion that can very from 0 in sub-energy particles to at least some very high velocity in energy photons and can vary some in matter particles, but must maintain specific relationships to the particle’s curvature structure for the particle to be stable. Then there is the fifth vector velocity of matter particles, which again must maintain specific relationships to the particle’s fourth vector velocity to maintain particle stability.
Very good start. Replace gyroscopic with fifth vector curvature (main difference is that gyroscopes usually rotate in (curve into) a two-dimensional plain while the fifth vector velocity creates a three-dimensional curvature component). What is seen as the quantum aspects are due to a photon’s fourth vector motion and a matter particle’s fifth vector motion transfer threshold and the multiple fourth-vector wavelength/variable dynamic mass effect relationship with the fifth vector curved path size to allow particle path stability.
Not too far off. Each wave is the result of the particle’s fourth vector motion traveling from one end of the fourth dimension into and through our three-dimensional continuum and to the other end of the fourth dimension and then traveling back through our three-dimensional continuum in the opposite direction and back to the other end of the fourth dimension. This creates both the positive and negative wave halves. The amount of energy (mass effect) contained in each wave is dependant on the fourth vector velocity. The greater the velocity, the greater the amount of energy (motion) and the greater the frequency because it can travel from one end of the fourth dimension to the other in less time and can thus complete more full waves in a given time. The wave length becomes shorter because it travels a shorter distance in its three dimensional composite motion during the completion of a full wave.
Better answer than most that I have seen. Remember that a matter particle is not an infinitely small point entity, but a combination of motions. Its fourth vector motion causes its mass to vary from a small straight line mass component due to its instantaneous three-dimensional composite motion as it travels around its enclosed path to a maximum dynamic mass with a ninety degree angular component to its three dimensional direction of travel then back to the straight line level and then back to the maximum ninety degree component, but this time in the opposite direction. At the same time it has its three-dimensional angular mass effect due to its fifth vector motion, but it is continually traveling around its enclosed path. All of this internal motion structure and variable mass can allow for many interaction results when you consider that the particle that it interacts with has a similar structure.
Here I was talking about a single matter particle. I should have made that clearer. This is sort of explained above. It is mainly because the energy photon does not have a fifth vector velocity, so it has no rest mass, while the matter particle does and as its velocity increases its fifth vector velocity also increases, which increases its mass effect and causes greater curvature in its path so its volume is decreased.
The stability of a particle is primarily determined by the relationship of its fourth vector velocity to its fifth vector velocity. Stable particles have three dimensional internal standing wave structures.
Remember that variations in volume mean variations in ones measuring devices/distances, etc. I’ll let you figure out the rest. Neither SR nor QFT takes into consideration the motion structure of entities or the full structure of the dimensional system in which they exist.
Space is not timeless, but its structure is on the contrary greatly responsible for the need for the concept of time. On the other hand, time is not some extra physical dimension with the past in one direction and the future in the other direction. Time is the result of motion through space. The dimensions are constructed such that they each contain more than one position that can contain a motion entity. When two or more motion entities exist in different positions in space they generate the concept of distance as the space of positions between them. One of the basic structural traits of motion entities is the ability to change or move from one position in space to another. As a motion entity continually changes its position to travel through a distance from one point to some other distant point in space it generates a period of motion from the point that the motion leaves the beginning point until it reaches its end point as it travels through its distance between the two points. We call this period time and have included it in the definition of the concept of time. If all motions were at the same amplitude, a period of time would be determined solely by the distance traveled, so T=D, where T is the time period size and D is the distance traveled. This is somewhat the case with light photons, but matter particles can have motion amplitudes from zero all the way up to about C. This requires a consideration of the motions amplitude to be added to the above expression, so that T=D/M, where T is the time period size, D is the distance traveled, and M is the motion amplitude because the time period increases in size with an increase in distance traveled and decreases in size with an increase in motion amplitude. Man has unnecessarily complicated the formula by using other time periods to define the motion amplitude into a rate rather than just picking a specific motion amplitude level as a unit of motion amplitude and comparing all motions in terms of that unit. This adds to the confusion about what time is. The main other part of the definition of time that is often misunderstood is the concept of past, present, and future. We live in a continuum of motions that has existed since motions were introduced into the dimensional system. Since total motion quantity is conserved, this continuum will exist until all motion is extracted out of the dimensional system or the dimensional system itself becomes unable to support such motion. These motions travel in their predetermined directions until they interact with other motions. An interaction can cause a change in a motion’s amplitude in that it can either gain an increase or decrease in amplitude. If its amplitude is decreased to zero a motion entity ceases to exist, but its previous amount of motion is transferred to some other motion entity thus conserving the total quantity of motion. For the motion entity to cease to exist its motion must be reduced to zero not only in the first three dimensions, but its fourth and fifth vector motions must also be reduced to zero. An interaction can cause a change in the state or type of motion entity by causing a transfer into its fourth vector motion to change a sub-energy entity into an energy photon or into its fifth vector motion to change an energy photon into a matter particle. Of course, the reverse can also occur by removing motion from an entity’s fourth or fifth vector motions. A motions entity’s direction of travel can also be changed by an interaction by increases or decreases in its motion amplitudes in the lower three dimensions. In this continuum of motions and all of its changes due to interactions, previous conditions of all these motions have been changed by the changes in position of the motions as they proceed through their distances and also as they have been changed by interactions that they have experienced in their travel, so that the previous conditions no longer exist. These previous motion conditions are what we call the past and we know of them because we have stored records of them in our minds when we observed them when they did exist as the present. The present is the current motion conditions that now exist. We know of them because we can observe them (although one could say that the delay time for light to reach our eyes, etc. means that they are actually in the past by the time we perceive them, but this time lag is so short that it does not appreciably affect our ability to interact with the world in most cases). The future is the motion conditions that do not yet exist, but will exist at some point due to the playing out of the current motion conditions through their paths as modified by any interactions up to that point in the motion continuum. We can to some degree extrapolate what these future motion conditions will be, at least on a very local limited scale, by comparing present motion conditions with the stored records that we have of past conditions, but they do not really exist until they become the present. There is therefore no existent past or future to go to for time travel and no need for some special time dimension for time to flow through. The past, present, and future motion conditions and the periods of time produced by motions are generated dynamically as the motion entities travel through distances at their individual motion amplitudes to create the overall motion continuum through those motions and their interactions. I hope that this will be of some help.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 12:14 GMT
Peter, you say: Time is the result of motion through space.
Please explain how atom, photon, electron, massive body or stellar object creates time by its motion?
Time is not result of motion.
Time is result of measurement of motion in timeless universe.
Time t we gain by measurment with clocks.
Read my articles on file attached and you will see that in my view on time there is no contradiction. On the contrary all contradictions regarding motion and time are resolved.
Yours Amrit
attachments:
2_Time_is_run_of_Clocks_in_Timeless_Universe_FQXI.pdf,
2_In_what_way_are_related_Psychological_Time_and_Physical_Time_SORLI_2010.pdf
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 12:24 GMT
Paul sorry, I should adress you PAUL.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 07:05 GMT
Steve,
I also looked into evolution and I found that the structure of the world outside of living creatures works contrary to evolution in that it works toward a state of entropy that breaks down complex, organized, high potential energy structures. This can be easily seen just by looking at the complex structures that man makes. Instead of evolving into still higher forms after they are...
view entire post
Steve,
I also looked into evolution and I found that the structure of the world outside of living creatures works contrary to evolution in that it works toward a state of entropy that breaks down complex, organized, high potential energy structures. This can be easily seen just by looking at the complex structures that man makes. Instead of evolving into still higher forms after they are made, they break down over time into useless piles of junk. Even when living creatures die and leave large piles of DNA and the molecular machinery needed to make living creatures on the ground, instead of coming together and forming new living creatures they just turn back into dust in a short time. The natural world does not create higher level structures, but works actively to break them down to be equal to the state of surrounding structures and since the base structure is mostly at a very low energy level and simple, high energy or highly organized or complex structures are naturally brought down to lower energy, disorganized, simple structures by nature. This means that the first living creatures could not have been produced by the natural world. They had to have been created by a highly intelligent being (one much more intelligent than man because man can not create even a simple living creature from base substances). The only real question is whether all creatures were made by this being or whether only some simple living creature was made by him and all the other creatures came about through evolution of that simple creature over time. It would be most logical that such a being would just create all creatures that he desired rather than just make one and then wait millions or even billions of years for the others to evolve from it. If he could make the one it would not likely take nearly that long for him to just make the rest also. Although living creatures do make complex, organized, high potential energy structures, they are made in such a way that they can only copy their own structure, so they could not deliberately make new different living creatures, but only others like themselves. The living creatures (man included) do not understand the copying process. It is accomplished either completely automatically or as a result of simple actions by the living creature to initiate the process. Once initiated the process proceeds automatically. This leaves the living creatures intellect out as a source of new different creatures. That only leaves chance errors and natural selection as the only possible natural method of their production. There is a twofold problem with this concept. The first is that if a major evolutionary change occurred lets say every 10,000 years, it would allow for only 400,000 major changes in a 4,000,000,000 year period, which would be the most time one could expect could be allowed based on the predicted age of the earth of about 4,500,000,000 years (it has to cool, etc.). This would not be nearly enough to produce all of the living creatures that have ever lived on this planet. As the population grew the probability of errors that could cause major evolutionary changes would increase, but this leads to the other problem, which is that with the present population of man at about 6,000,000,000 if half were female (3,000,000,000) and if 40 percent of them were at child bearing age (1,200,000,000) and each had an average of 2 children in their about 30 year child bearing period or 1 child per fifteen years (80,000,000) the one in 10,000 probability of a major evolutionary change would mean there would be about 8000 major evolutionary changes expected per year in man alone and many more in faster multiplying creatures like bacteria that also have much greater populations. We don’t see these changes, so it doesn’t work. If you make the probability of a major evolutionary change too long you don’t get nearly enough total changes to produce all of the living creatures that have ever lived on earth, but if you make it shorter the exponential increase in the population makes for a very high rate of evolutionary change at present, but such changes are not occurring. Evolution just doesn’t work as a producer of all living creatures from the first one.
Your analogy about spheres starts out pretty good, but we are not composed of spheres, at least at most levels. The molecules that we are made of are generally not spheres. If we look at a smaller scale the atoms are not spheres either. The nucleus of the atoms that we are made of is not a sphere, but a continuously moving mass of particles that do not form a nice neat sphere as is often visualized in drawings. There are continual exchanges of motion between protons and neutrons, etc. within the nucleus to maintain stability, etc. If you look at a still smaller scale the particles of matter that make up the atoms are not spheres either, but are composed of a structural point that is moving in a three dimensional enclosed path that is not a solid sphere as some might suppose. When you get to the structural point level you might have a point, but that is beyond the level that I will go at this time. Again above the structural point level, light does not appear as a sphere, but as a wave with a specific length and its height is not generally the same as its length. In the galaxy we don’t live on a sphere, but on a disk that rotates around the center. A sphere is a three dimensional structure. The universe is an eight dimensional structure and we take part in the lower five of them in our lives here.
I know that you think you are right in all this and you do have some insights that others here do not recognize, but I do. The problem is that you have tried too hard to fit them into man’s current beliefs and understandings when they don’t fit, so you come up just being another brick in the wall of man when you could be much more. You have the ability to discern patterns more than many, but you need to let go of man’s current fads of evolution and quantum mechanics, etc. and look deeper. You don’t need to recognize this to me or in public, just do it privately for yourself honestly with the intent to really understand the truth even if you end up with results that don’t agree with man. Start from the beginning and you will come to understand much more. There is so much more that you have not yet begun to consider to it all. It would have been much better to have caught you much earlier in your development. Now it all depends on you. You have to make the decision yourself now or just waste it all. Don’t get discouraged it will take you years, so if you accept to do it be prepared for that. Look at all observed data that you can (not just man’s interpretations of the data) and see how the patterns fit together. Then look for the world that would generate all that data and those patterns. The first step is to be willing to give up all that you think you know now and start over from the beginning. If you choose to make the commitment, I wish you well in that endeavor and I am willing to help you in any way that I can. If you choose not to do so, there is nothing more that I can provide for you, as you will not accept anything that I say anyway and I am not into wasting my time for no purpose.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 08:44 GMT
Amrit,
Your argument is sort of like the one about: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see or hear it fall (record it), did it really fall? The answer is yes it fell and its fall is recorded in the continuum of motion that it and its fall are a part of. When a given motion with a given motion amplitude travels through a distance in space, it generates a period that...
view entire post
Amrit,
Your argument is sort of like the one about: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see or hear it fall (record it), did it really fall? The answer is yes it fell and its fall is recorded in the continuum of motion that it and its fall are a part of. When a given motion with a given motion amplitude travels through a distance in space, it generates a period that extends from the point that it leaves the beginning point of that distance until it arrives at the point at the end of that distance. If the distance is made larger the period becomes longer and if the motion amplitude is increased the period becomes smaller. Thus there is the relationship T= D/M where T is the time period, D is the distance, and M is the motion amplitude. If there was no motion in the universe there would be no such periods generated and your concept of space being timeless would be true, but once you introduce motion into the universe, the motion(s) generate periods as they travel through their distances (space) and man has included these periods as a part of his definition of time. The main reason that man needs to consider these periods is to be able to compare one motion through a distance to another one. This would not be as necessary if motion was a single amplitude function because then the period generated would be determined just by the distance traveled or T=D and every one would get to know about what size period would be generated if you traveled one mile, for example. In that case, if someone asked you how long your trip was you could just say, it was 15 miles and he would not only know the distance that you traveled, but would also have a good idea of the size of the period of your trip because all 15 mile trips would generate the same period. Because motion is a multi-amplitude function, however, the period that is generated on your trip not only depends on the distance that you traveled, but also on the amplitude of your motion during your trip. Whether anyone measured the period of your trip or not, it would still be generated by your motion at its specific amplitude as it traveled through the distance of your trip. Periods are resultant outputs of relationships (interactions) between space (distance) and motion and since man has included such periods as a part of time in its definition, space that contains motion is not timeless, but contains time periods. Motions generate specific periods of time whether they are measured by man or not. As an example, when an electron in an atom goes from a higher orbit to a lower one in the atom, it emits a photon. This photon’s existence begins when it leaves the electron and it travels away from that point with a motion amplitude of C. After traveling some distance through space it may hit another atom and be absorbed by an electron in it, so that the electron can move to a higher orbit in that atom thus ending its existence. Its lifetime period is naturally generated by its travel through the distance from the point of its emission to the point of its absorption at its motion amplitude of C whether anyone actually measures it or not. Its existence in the motion continuum is its own record of its lifetime period recorded in that continuum. Man’s use of clocks is just a way for man to compare any given period with a standard period, so periods can be compared in the same way that a meter stick is used to measure and compare distances. Does the distance not exist if a man does not measure it using a meter stick? The distance exists as a part of the structure of space whether it is measured or not and a period of time exists as an output of the interaction between a motion and space whether measured or not.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 09:10 GMT
Dear Paul
tree is falling in space only and not in time.
With clock/time we measure duration of tree falling.
Tree is falling in sequences t0, t1, t2,……….tn. Numerical order of this sequences we measure with clocks. Numerical order of tree falling exists without measuring it.
Duration of tree falling exist only when measured.
Duration of an event is result of measurement.
Clock/time is a measuring device for material change i.e. motion in the universe that itself is timeless.
See more on file attached.
Yours Amrit
attachments:
1_Analysis_of_Relation_between_Spacetime.......pdf
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 04:00 GMT
Amrit,
I read your reference, but I am not sure that I completely understand what you are saying. I have a few questions to which the answers may make things clearer to me. All motions in the below questions are at velocities way below C, so no relativistic effects need to be considered.
A_________________________B_________________________C
|| ||
Figure 1
1. Do you believe that a particle of matter can move from a given point A in space to another point B in space that is a distance of one meter from point A by traveling through the points that are between points A and B on the straight line between points A and B.
2. If you do, do you believe that the motion can be non-instantaneous, so that it first travels to the point that is in line between Points A and B that is the closest to point A and then to the next closest point to A and so forth until it ultimately reaches point B?
3. In figure 1 above, do you believe that it would be possible for two matter particles (one at point A and one at point C to simultaneously leave their respective starting points and travel toward point B such that the particle that left point A reaches point B at the point in the travel of the particle that left point C such that it reaches exactly the mid point between points B and C? (i.e., do you believe that it would be possible for the particle that left point A to travel 1 meter at twice the velocity of the particle that left point C).
4. If you do, what do you call the relationship between distance traveled D and the velocity V of each of these particles: D, A>B/Va and D, C>B/Vc, where D, A>B=the distance traveled from point A to Point B=(1 meter), Va=the velocity of the particle that left point A, and D, C>B=the distance traveled from point C to point B=(1 meter), Vc=the velocity of the particle that left point C. (i.e. What do you call the relationship D/V (the distance traveled by the matter particle divided by the particle’s velocity) of each particle)?
5. Do you believe that the relationship D/V of each of the particles mentioned in question 4 above would occur as a natural part of its motion through its traveled distance even if it is not measured?
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 13, 2010 @ 04:21 GMT
Amrit,
In my previous post figure 1 did not display properly. The line below the line with the A, B, and C on it should have a vertical line at the A followed by a less than sign, then several dashes, then the label (1 Mile), then several dashes, then a greater than sign, then a vertical line at B, then another vertical line at B, then a less than sign, then several dashes, then the label (1 Mile), then several dashes, then a greater than sign, then a vertical line at C. This was to show that the distance from A to B was 1 mile and the distance from B to C was 1 mile. It showed up ok when I pasted it into the Add a New Post data area, but displayed with only the vertical lines as you see them after sending the post. I guess it doesn’t like dashes, or greater and less than signs.
report post as inappropriate
Mr.Ed replied on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 09:34 GMT
To All with respect:
Can we see or measure a photon traveling away from us in a vacuum? I know we can see/measure photons coming towards us.
Light can bend or curve because of gravity.
Is there a correlation of the amount a given amount of matter,that can be converted into maximum photon emission and the maximum amount that this given amount of matter can curve/bend/attract photons?
Photons traveling close enough to a black hole's event horizon will fall inwards and the photons(existing as a photon) cannot escape.
There is an amount of pull from dark energy in OUR universe.
There are photons striking our earth with a certain amount of energy or push.At the same time the mass of the sun is pulling at the earth.
Could there be a force at the backside of a photon traveling away from us that could exert a "pull" or "gravity".Could the ass end of a photon be a "graviton" or "dark energy"?!
Please give your opinions,I have a migraine already.
I'm not "frank"!I am ,of course!
Mr.Ed
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 09:45 GMT
Interesting questions Mr Ed. Opinions?; Short answer; No. Thoughts;
"Can we see or measure a photon traveling away from us in a vacuum?"
No. (otherwise we see ourselves everywhere!). No em wave motion rearwards.
"Light can bend or curve because of gravity".
Space bends or curves, EM waves travel in a straight line through local space. But from any observers frame Schrodinger sphere surfaces and light cones are distorted by local curved space.
"Is there a correlation of the amount a given amount of matter, that can be converted into maximum photon emission and the maximum amount that this given amount of matter can curve/bend/attract photons?"
Yes. Use e=mc2, GR and Newtons laws.
"Photons traveling close enough to a black hole's event horizon will fall inwards and the photons(existing as a photon) cannot escape."
Perhaps. - Read Hawking. - and we know too litle about light, plus see below.
"There is an amount of pull from dark energy in OUR universe. There are photons striking our earth with a certain amount of energy or push. At the same time the mass of the sun is pulling at the earth."
Dangerous assumptions. Dark matter, probably propagated from dark energy, is considered to locally pull. As photons have zero mass he 'push' is arguable, etc. but I'll follow your thoughts.
"Could there be a force at the backside of a photon traveling away from us that could exert a "pull" or "gravity". Could the ass end of a photon be a "graviton" or "dark energy"?!"
I struggle to find any logical or observational/empirical evidence. Also consider this; If we're ever to unite physics particles can't be conserved. (read Penrose etc). We've only ever witnessed photons as short range energy concentrations condesed from the field so, despite aged assumption, it's foolish to believe more. As all particles are oscillating ('spin') energy of something it may be that photons have gravity, but the evidence points to baryonic particles etc NOT travelling at 'c' being those that 'bend' local space. Probably something like the Dirac hole in the Dirac sea. When the particles energy is re-absorbed ('anihilation'!?) the sea would flatten out (but Shrodinger energy waves may still pass through it).
Now I'm starting to get a headache too. I belive Occam, Einstein and Feynman -Physics is simple, it should able to be explained to a barmaid, and 'nature will always find a simpler way than we can imagine'.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Mr.Ed replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 13:57 GMT
Thank you Peter!
I would go back and read but, at my age I'm running out of"Time" and needed some "crib notes" before I depart.I might need them in some "dimension".Right now though, I am just "fine man".
Really,Thanks.Now,I am being "frank"!
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Apr. 18, 2010 @ 21:02 GMT
Paul
an object moves from A to B in space only and not in time.
Velocity of the particle is derived from numerical order of its motion that we gain with clocks. Numerical order t0, t1, t2...tn of a physical event we measure with a clock. A sequence t-1 is “before” sequence t equivalently to natural number n-1 is before natural number n . Numerical order to, t1, t2....tn of a physical event has no duration. It runs in a timeless space where physical time is run of clocks. Velocity v of a physical event is derived from its numerical order t0, t1,t2...tn.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Apr. 18, 2010 @ 21:11 GMT
Paul, physics needs only Clocks, Time can be abandoned.
yours amrit
attachments:
Physics_needs_only_clocks_time_can_be_abandoned.pdf
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Apr. 21, 2010 @ 08:56 GMT
Dear Paul, here you have Ten Reasons to restitute Concept of Time in Physics with Concept of Numeric Order
1.with clocks we measure numeric order t0,t1,t2…tn of physical events
2.t1 is “before” t2 equivalently as number 1 is before number 2
3.in Special Theory of Relativity fourth coordinate X4 is spatial to:
X4 = i x c x tn
4.numeric order of physical events runs in a timeless space
5.fundamental unit of numeric order is Planck time tp
6.velocity v of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn: v = d/tn
7.frequency of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn:
frequency = 1/tn
8.numeric order of events running in timeless space has no duration
9.a sense of duration is result experiencing numeric order of events through the psychological time past-present-future
10.symbol t in physics represents numeric order tn
Out of developing concept of space-time into the concept of timeless space where with clock we measure numeric order of t0,t1,t2…tn physical events follows:
1.paradox of time travel is resolved. No time travel is possible. One can travel only in space.
2.paradox of twins is resolved. Both grow older in a timeless space.
3.Zeno problems of motion are resolved: motion happens in space only and not in time
4.for immediate physical events as EPR and others numeric order is zero: tn = 0
5.for physical events which happening requires “tick” of a clock numeric order is more than zero
6.at the Planck scale information and energy transfer is immediate. Numerical order of events at Planck scale is zero: tn = 0
7.at the photon scale information and energy transfer has velocity c, numeric order tn is more than zero
8.at the larger scale then photon information and energy transfer has velocity lower than c, numeric order tn is more than zero
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 04:44 GMT
Amrit,
Since the planck distance is considered the smallest distance possible and larger distances are considered multiples of the planck distance and the planck time is considered the smallest time period possible and longer time periods are considered to be multiples of the planck time, it would seem that if position transfers occurred immediately (at infinite velocity) at the planck scale any larger scale motion would also occur at infinite velocity because larger distance position transfers would be multiples of the planck distance and planck time. As an example, an immediate transfer could only happen if the distance or the time equaled zero. If the planck distance equaled zero there would be no transfer of position. If the planck time equaled zero then any position transfer of any distance would equal a time of zero also because a transfer of two planck distances would take two planck times, which would be two times zero or zero. A larger scale transfer of one billion planck distances would take one billion planck times, which would be one billion times zero or zero. How do you explain this?
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Apr. 22, 2010 @ 21:12 GMT
Paul,
quantum space is made out of Quanta of Space QS that have a volume of Planck.
In quantum space information and energy transfer are immediate.
We publish an article about that in Physics Essays - AIP.
see file attached
yours amrit
attachments:
1_According_to_the_Formalism_d__v_x_t__Spacetime_is_Timeless.pdf,
Nonlocality_and_Symetrized_Quantum_Potential.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 24, 2010 @ 07:50 GMT
Amrit,
I looked at your paper titled According to the Formalism d = v x t Space-time is Timeless. I noticed an error in the formula on the next to the last line of the second paragraph in the introduction. You have t (sub) p=c/l (sub) p (If I use subscripts or postscripts in Microsoft Word they don’t transfer to FQXI properly so I had to give it that way. So, t (sub) p is the t with the...
view entire post
Amrit,
I looked at your paper titled According to the Formalism d = v x t Space-time is Timeless. I noticed an error in the formula on the next to the last line of the second paragraph in the introduction. You have t (sub) p=c/l (sub) p (If I use subscripts or postscripts in Microsoft Word they don’t transfer to FQXI properly so I had to give it that way. So, t (sub) p is the t with the subscript p). It should be t (sub) p=l (sub) p/c. You might want to correct it if you want to give this paper as a demonstration of your concept.
You can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the Planck distance (l (sub) p) is considered to be the minimum distance that can be traveled and C is considered the maximum velocity that can be achieved. The Planck time (t (sub) p) is the time that it takes to travel the Planck distance at a velocity of C and is therefore considered the minimum time period. In your paper you mentioned that (t (sub) p) = 539,124*10>-44s. This would seem to be saying that time still exists even at the Planck size level.
We both agree that there is no time dimension. I see no need for a fourth dimension of space to replace time either. We both agree that time is not a fundamental entity. Time is a relationship between two fundamental entities, which are space (distance) and motion. This is easy to see if you remove the R (rate) from the formula D=RT or the V (velocity) from the formula D=VT and replace them with M (motion amplitude) resulting in the formula D=MT. We know that the R or the V is actually expressing the amount of motion. As an example 100miles/hour = 2 times as much motion as 50miles/hour. There is no reason that you could not pick the 50miles/hour amount of motion as your unit of motion amplitude. If you did, the 100miles/hour amount of motion would then be expressed as 2 units of motion amplitude (you would probably give the unit some name like the Amrit, etc.). This gets rid of the confusing extra time function in the formula while keeping the main relationship intact. From D=MT it can be seen that T=D/M. This is the true meaning of time in terms of the production of time periods. It can be easily seen that as a motion travels through a distance, it generates a time period that is dependant on two variables, which are the distance traveled and the amount or amplitude of the motion that is traveling through that distance. If the distance is increased the time period becomes larger and if the motion amplitude or amount of motion is increased the time period generated by the motion traveling through the distance becomes smaller. When a motion travels or changes position from one point in space to another, there are only two ways that a time period would not be generated. The first would be if the distance traveled were zero. In this case there would be no actual change in position, so there would be no actual motion, so it would not come under the requirements that time periods are produced by a motion traveling through a distance. The second case would be if the motion amplitude were infinite. In this case the time period produced would be infinitely small and could be considered to not exist. This second case seems to be what you are proposing in your hypothesis because you talk about immediate transfer at the quantum scale. The information that you gave in your paper, however, says that even at the Planck scale the Planck time period of 539,124*10>-44 exists for the minimum transfer distance of 1 Planck distance. If the Planck distance is the minimum distance that can be traveled Quantum motion would have to occur at this scale or larger, so it would seem that time in terms of the Planck time or multiples thereof would still apply to quantum motion transfers.
Moreover, if there were some form of immediate (infinite velocity) transfer at the quantum scale, you would have to explain how it is that larger scale motions travel at a lesser velocity if you want your hypothesis to be internally complete. What would introduce the slow down and why would the maximum velocity of larger scale motions be C and not some other velocity?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 25, 2010 @ 10:23 GMT
Why I say that, I have nothing against you , be sure , I just critic simply.
In fact the linearity and the gravitational stability is not differenciated, thus that implies confusions about the limits like Planck and C.
Now of course you are right about the motion, but the duration is only in 1 entity and is constant .
Thus of course your interpretation of the minimal distance, if we consider the linearity and the stability of the gravity,is not sufficient.
Indeed you are two main kinds of motion, rotations spinals aand orbitals and the linearity......the sense takes all its sense.....
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Apr. 25, 2010 @ 12:46 GMT
Dear Paul,
Planck time tp is a fundamental unit of numeric order of change that runs in the universe. Universe itself is timeless. The only time in the universe that exists is psychological time through which we experience change of the universe.
Yours Amrit
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Apr. 25, 2010 @ 12:48 GMT
PS
Let’s take a photon is moving on the distance d between point A and point B of space. Distance d is composed out of Planck distances lp: d = sum of lp1+lp2…+lpn. The smallest distance photon can do on the way from A to B is lp. Numeric order of photon motion from lp1 to lp2 is a Planck time tp. Photon is moving exclusively in space and not in time. In space “before” and...
view entire post
PS
Let’s take a photon is moving on the distance d between point A and point B of space. Distance d is composed out of Planck distances lp: d = sum of lp1+lp2…+lpn. The smallest distance photon can do on the way from A to B is lp. Numeric order of photon motion from lp1 to lp2 is a Planck time tp. Photon is moving exclusively in space and not in time. In space “before” and “after” exist only as a numeric order of a physical event: tn-1 is “before” tn equivalently to natural number n-1 is “before” natural number n. Numeric order of material change we measure with “ticking” of a clock where to represents beginning of the measurement, tn end of the measurement. Velocity v of a material change is derived from its numeric order tn : v = d/tf. Frequency of material change is derived from its numeric order tn: frequency = 1/tn.
According to the formalism d = v x t fourth dimension of space-time X4 = I x c x t is spatial too. Time is not a fourth dimension of space-time. Material change i.e. motion run in a timeless space. Fundamental unit of numeric order t0,t1,t1…tn of material change is a Planck time tp.
It is more correct to imagine cosmic space as a four-dimensional 4D space than 3D + 1 where fourth dimension is time. There is no time in the universe. Universal space is timeless.
Material change and a clock they both run in a timeless 4D space and have no duration. Universe is a timeless phenomenon.
Fundamental unit of numeric order t0,t1,t2…tn of material change that run in space is Planck time tp = 5,39124 x 10 -44 s and is derived from the light speed: tp = c/lp where lp is a Planck distance. Planck time tp exists in the universe as a fundamental physical unit that governs numeric order of material change.
Here concept of time is definitely abandoned and replaced with the numeric order of material change which is measured with a clock. Material change runs in 4D space. In equations of physics meaning of symbol t is numeric order tn of material change obtained with a clock. In Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity it is not that is relative, relative is velocity vof material change. Twin in a fast spaceship is getting older slower than his twin brother remaining on the earth. Both twins are getting older in the space only and not in time. One can travel in space only and not in time. Time travel is not possible.
Material changes are running slower in space where gravity is stronger and faster where gravity is weaker. They always run in a timeless space.
Recent neurological research shows by measuring a physical event with a clock we experience numeric order t0,t1,t2…tn of event through psychological time “past-present-future”. However numeric order of physical event runs in timeless space and has no duration.
“Traditionally, the way in which time is perceived, represented and estimated has been explained using a pacemaker–accumulator model that is not only straightforward, but also surprisingly powerful in explaining behavioural and biological data. However, recent advances have challenged this traditional view. It is now proposed that the brain represents time in a distributed manner and tells the time by detecting the coincidental activation of different neural populations:
-Catalin V. Buhusi, Warren H. Meck, What makes us thick?, Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing, Nature reviews, Volume 6, October 2005
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v6/n10/abs/nrn1764.htm
l
yours amrit
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on May. 3, 2010 @ 04:20 GMT
Steve,
I am glad that you have nothing against me and I also have nothing against you. As I told you before, you have the ability to see patterns that many others don’t see or ignore and I would like to help you to learn how to use that ability to gain an understanding of the world that will greatly surprise and enlighten you to the hidden things that exist that those without this...
view entire post
Steve,
I am glad that you have nothing against me and I also have nothing against you. As I told you before, you have the ability to see patterns that many others don’t see or ignore and I would like to help you to learn how to use that ability to gain an understanding of the world that will greatly surprise and enlighten you to the hidden things that exist that those without this ability cannot discern. I have decided to respond to you when I see that you have picked up a pattern and expressed it to me in a way that indicates that you have an understanding of it, so you can see what I am saying about your ability to see these patterns. I will ignore statements like your wrong with no valid explanation as to how or why. Your statements will have to be coherent with logical reasons preferably based on observations that are expressed in an orderly manner that backs up your premise, for me to respond to you.
You are right that I didn’t cover linearity problems or solutions and I also did not cover anything about gravity. First I am not covering gravity at this time because in order to do so would require me to cover other things first (fifth vector structuring concepts) that it is not yet time for man to know. If these things are transferred too soon, man will use them in the wrong way and destroy himself and this planet. That would be contrary to my purpose here. You are free to believe me or not, but I will not go into these things at this time for that reason. All I will say is that most mass is generated by angular motion and the mass in matter particles is mainly caused by the particle’s fifth vector (dimensional) velocity. As a matter particle’s three-dimensional velocity increases toward the speed of light a part of that increased velocity is transferred to its fifth vector velocity. This increases the particle’s mass. Because the fifth vector velocity causes the particle’s curved path, this curvature is increased with an increase in fifth vector velocity thus decreasing the particle’s volume. The variation in volume causes distance in terms of the particle’s perspective to become a multi-amplitude function based on velocity requiring the distance amplitude to be considered in measurements and interactions, etc. Gravity is directly connected to mass. That is all I will say about that. The C limit is due to the velocity induction transfer threshold from the lower three dimensions to the fourth dimension. The Planck limits do not really exist. They could be looked at as the rough equivalents to the fifth vector structural level disconnect point, but a whole new structural level exists below. It just cannot be accessed from here except at the structural crossover velocity, which allows access to that level to take advantage of the structural pull up effect. I know that you do not understand much of what I am saying at this point, but if you use your pattern recognition abilities and do not try to fit it into the filter of your past knowledge and experience you may be able to figure out some of it.
You are right that the time periods generated by an entity’s motion through distances only apply to that local entity. Great insight. There is no overall universal time. The closest thing to a universal clock that exists would be to consider that each change of position that occurs in any entity in the universe could be considered as a tick of the universal clock. There are several problems with this concept, however. The main one being that only someone who had a truly global perspective, so that he had the ability to observe all motions in the universe simultaneously and continuously could actually read such a clock because it would require the ability to observe when the next motion to complete a transfer from one point in space to the next point actually completed its transfer to that next point.
The interpretation of the minimal distance given is not mine. The Planck distance is not really the minimal distance, but just man’s current belief. It is just about the limit on the small side of this structural level. I often frame my responses within the acceptance range of those that I communicate with by keeping within the knowledge and technology level of the receiver of my communication. It is often best to limit the amount of new material given that is beyond the current knowledge and ability level of the receiver. If I can make the desired transfer of the principle or concept involved and at the same time stay within the receiver’s acceptable knowledge base, many problems of disbelief can often be avoided. The principles that are transferred in this way can then open up the receiver’s mind to receive more new information and can also correct previous wrong beliefs in such a way that the receiver believes that he came up with the corrections himself. Neither motion amplitude, nor distance is truly linear throughout the total range of their interactive scales.
Straight-line (linear) motion can primarily be looked at as a one-dimensional structure (can take place within one dimension). Rotation can be looked at as a two-dimensional structure (requires two dimensions for it to take place). There is also a three-dimensional motion structure that takes place inside of matter particles that requires three dimensions to take place.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul N. Butler wrote on May. 4, 2010 @ 17:44 GMT
Amrit,
The word time has several parts to its customary meaning. One of the parts of the meaning of time is the concept of a period of time. A time period has a beginning point, an end point, and a continuation that exists from the beginning point to the end point. When a motion travels through a distance, it generates such a time period. The actual beginning of an entity’s motion is...
view entire post
Amrit,
The word time has several parts to its customary meaning. One of the parts of the meaning of time is the concept of a period of time. A time period has a beginning point, an end point, and a continuation that exists from the beginning point to the end point. When a motion travels through a distance, it generates such a time period. The actual beginning of an entity’s motion is the beginning point of a natural time period and the end of its motion is the end point of the time period. The continuation of the time period’s existence runs from its beginning point to its end point. If a photon moves in space its motion by definition generates a time period. If the photon travels at a velocity of C for about 186,000 miles, the time period that it generates is about 1 second. The only way that a motion could occur without generating a time period would be if it had an infinitely high velocity. All light photons travel at a finite velocity called C and, therefore, they create time periods as they travel. The photon is not moving in time. Its motion creates time (a time period). Order of occurrence is another part of the definition of time. At any point (except the first and last points) while a motion is creating a time period by traveling through a distance, three basic order of occurrence divisions exist. They are: the past (all numeric order points that the motion has traveled through (t1… tx-1) where x = the present existing order of occurrence point (tx): the present (the present existing order of occurrence point (tx)): and the future (all order of occurrence points that will exist, but, have not yet existed (tx+1…tn) as the motion travels through its distance). Within each of these divisions there may be many order of appearance points. It only takes two order of appearance points (one in the past and one in the present) to create time by this part of the definition of time. Anytime a motion exists, it creates order of appearance points as it travels from one point to the next in its travel through its distance. Order of appearance is another part of the definition of time, so anytime an entity changes position from one point in space to another point in space both a time period and an order of position time change is generated by the motion of the entity as it travels through its distance from one point to another point in space. It should be noted that even a change of position in space that occurs at an infinite velocity (immediate transfer) would create an order of appearance time change because it would have existed in its first position before it transferred to its second position. These created time effects are basically local in effect and only directly apply to the specific motion that generates them. It is possible to combine and/or compare the time effects from more than one motion to get a larger effective time structure. The ultimate combination (not possible for us) would be to combine the time effects of all motions to get the true global time perspective. Note that this would just give one a global view of all of the time effects that are generated by all of the motions in existence including the results of their interactions. There is no overall time dimension or effect that causes the individual time effects. It is the combination of all of the individual time effects that gives the appearance of an overall time dimension or effect. As John Merryman might say, time is a bottom up process not a top down process.
There is no need for a fourth dimension to explain time. We agree on that. I don’t see any need for a fourth dimension to explain motion or change of position in space either. Motion is the fundamental entity that operates in space. All other entities such as energy photons and matter particles are composed of various motions that give them their specific properties. It is not possible for motion to run in timeless space because motion through distance (space) generates time periods and order of appearance time effects.
I do see the need for a fourth dimension and also a fifth dimension, but they are needed to explain the structure of energy photons and matter particles among other things not for the generation of time. Time periods and order of appearance time effects are results of motions or spatial position changes, so the only way that universal space could be timeless would be if it contained no motion (was empty).
Time is a relationship between space (distance) and motion (change of position). It shows the combined effect of a specific amount of distance with a specific amount (amplitude, rate, or velocity) of motion. Because motion is a multi-amplitude structure, you cannot get the full equivalent result by looking only at space. You must also take into consideration the amount of motion that a given motion possesses (its motion amplitude). This relationship T=D/M (where T=time period or duration, D=distance traveled, and M=motion amplitude) is called a time period and exists anytime a motion travels through (changes position in) space. Because all that is needed to create time periods and order of appearance time effects is motion or change of position in space, they can occur in one-dimensional space as a motion travels along its dimensional line.
The Planck time (5,39124 x 10 –44s) shows that time periods and numeric order of appearance time effects work all the way down to the quantum level.
Remember that numeric order of material change is a part of the definition of time. There are those who say that the physical order of appearance can be different for observers in different frames of reference (different local perspectives). We agree that one cannot travel backward in time or forward either except through the normal progression of motions. The current position of all motions in space, their current directions, and their current motion amplitudes is all that actually exists. When a motion changes its position in space, it no longer exists in its previous position, but now exists in its current new position. Its previous position is now only a part of its past. This past does not really exist except possibly in the form of stored records of its previous existence. You cannot go back to something that doesn’t exist. The future also does not exist because it is just the conditions of motions in the motion continuum at some point after they have continued in their paths and interactions from their current present conditions until they finally generate the projected future motion conditions. They have not yet played out in that way to reach those future conditions, so there is nothing there to go to either. A good way to look at it is that the past is composed of all of the motion conditions in the motion continuum that have existed from the beginning of motion to the present existing motion conditions, but no longer exist because they have been replaced by later conditions. The present is the current existing motion conditions. The future is all of the motion conditions that will exist in the motion continuum after present motions continue on their paths and through their interactions to generate them, but do not yet exist because the motions in the continuum have not yet arrived to those conditions.
I am not currently covering gravity effects.
Any motion (change of position) has a duration unless it is traveling at infinite velocity.
It seems that you are ignoring the time periods (durations) that are produced by motions traveling through distances (changes in spatial position). You are not considering order of appearance to be a time effect when it is. You hold onto the fourth time dimension by just trying to convert it to a spatial dimension without giving a good reason why it is needed at all if a time dimension is not needed. Except for these things we are in pretty close agreement on the things that I will cover at this time. Of course, you may or may not agree with the basic dimensional, entity structuring and other concepts that I have presented so far on FQXI. As you have generally not commented on them, I do not know of your positions on them.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on May. 31, 2010 @ 15:30 GMT
Paul
I like your clarity in viewing motion as simple change of position, needing time, but, change wrt who or what? Does a particle stay motionless in space when a galaxy arrives and passes by? In an interstellar medium at 2.7 degrees, or dark energy field, it either is or is not in absolute motion wrt the background field.
The panic this generates in STR fans is not necessary. It's not time that's important but local motion. A particles motion, even a photon, can of course only ever be 'local' to where it is at any moment in time. Now consider we put it in a box in space, say a room in the space station. In that frame it travels at 'c' wrt the box. We know. We've measured it. But if we're watching it from space as the space station passes us we have to use the Lorentz transformation and contraction.
Why? Because the postulates of the STR say 'c' is constant and physics is the same everywhere and in every frame. It is however only an assumption that they also mean we can't observe a change of position happening at a different speed wrt our own frame. The light that reaches us informing us of the position of something at any time, ergo a new position after a time, always reaches us at 'c'. The edge of a shadow can appear to move across a curved surface at any speed lower or faster than 'c'.
If the photon in the box in the moving space station only does 'c' wrt the box, why on earth do we need to remove the ether if we are only ever informed of it's new position by information travelling and reaching us at 'c'?? We do not if reference frames really and local exist. Simply remember; a closed box can be perfectly described with a set of co-ordinates.
Causality is not affected as that information is not the same as carried by the subject photon or wave pattern itself. Einstein did indeed say in 1921 'space without ether is unthinkable'. The postulates of STR are fine, only a thoughtless additional assumption is incorrect, causing 100years of paradox and anomalies.
Each bunch of particles, box, planet, galaxy etc in relative motion has it's own reference frame through which em waves can only travel at 'c' locally. There is also a quantum phenomina and mechanism at the boundaries staring us in the face.
When em waves change speed (ie into a prism or water) they must always Doppler shift. This must be to for conservation of energy. The reverse must then also be true, when em waves are Doppler shifted it means they've changed speed - so must have moved between real physical reference frames.
I'd expect you to be able to see this Paul, though it seems most are too steeped in historic errors. Am I correct?
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Wilton Alano wrote on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 23:56 GMT
.
Dears,
Energy and time are two sides of the same coin. Time is just elapsed in the inside of energized systems. Like energy, time means motion. If every bit of existent matter were perfectly stopped (relative to any reference), no time would be elapsed.
As any other bigness, time can be measured against a sample-pattern and is obviously relative.
Seems obvious, and it is...
report post as inappropriate
BEST PHYSICS wrote on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 20:14 GMT
The contraction and stretching/expansion of space, consistent with generally balanced attraction and repulsion creates distance in space and would generally incorporate quantum mechanical phenomena -- that is, consistent with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy. When space/energy is substantially more the same, then quantum gravity, electromagnetism, and gravity would then be able to manifest in variable, yet equivalent, forms.
report post as inappropriate
BEST PHYSICS wrote on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 00:02 GMT
Gravity and electromagnetism both pertain to distance in space, so it is critical to balance electromagnetic repulsion/expansion with gravitational contraction/attraction in any theory of quantum gravity.
Moreover, the contraction and stretching/expansion of space, consistent with generally balanced attraction and repulsion creates distance in space and would generally incorporate quantum mechanical phenomena -- that is, consistent with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy. When space/energy is substantially more the same, then quantum gravity, electromagnetism, and gravity would then be able to manifest in variable, yet equivalent, forms.
report post as inappropriate
Rolex replica wrote on Oct. 11, 2010 @ 10:04 GMT
replica rolex
rolex watches replica
replica rolex watches
report post as inappropriate
julian luque wrote on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 11:04 GMT
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
GRAVITY AND SPACE
...
view entire post
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
GRAVITY AND SPACE
When a body accelerates in space, creates the effect of inertia in the direction opposite where you accelerate, call center of gravity.
If space that is accelerated, it creates the same effect.
Example, in the first second of the universe, the universal sphere would measure 300,000 kilometers of radio, in the 2nd second 600,000 in the 3rd second 900 000 km radius, with the mass the same, in an area that increases in volume to the cube in negative density . It is therefore an acceleration into space. vacuum is not constant, and is accelerated by the universal sphere radius at any time. The vacuum is accelerated outward, and the effect goes in from each club.
Principle of cause, effect.
Do not want to elaborate more. If you're interested I can explain much more Thanks for your attention Julián Luque c / escuelas 24 Montilla (Córdoba) Spain
movile 638017324 phone 957 651734 ------------- EL ESPACIO Y LA GRAVEDAD
Cuando un cuerpo acelera en el espacio, crea el efecto de inercia en sentido opuesto en la dirección donde se acelera, le llamo punto de gravedad.
Si es el espacio el que se acelera, creará el mismo efecto.
Ejemplo, en el primer segundo del universo, la esfera universal medirÃa 300.000 kilómetros de radio,en el 2º segundo 600.000 en el 3º segundo 900.000 kilómetros de radio, siendo la masa la misma, en una esfera que aumenta su volumen al cubo en densidad negativa. Por lo tanto es una aceleración hacia el vacÃo. el vacÃo no es constante, y es acelerado por el radio de la esfera universal en cada momento. EL vacÃo acelerado va hacia fuera, y el efecto va hacia dentro de cada maza.
Principio de causa, efecto.
No quiero extenderme mas. Si es de su interés puedo explicarle mucho mas Gracias por su atención Julián Luque c/ escuelas 24 montilla (Córdoba) España
teléfono 957 651734 móvil 638017324
-------------------------------------
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 16:50 GMT
Einsteiniana: Reviving the Old Money-Spinner
Celebrating Einstein Through 100 Years Of General Relativity: "Albert Einstein is probably the most well-known scientific genius. His creative ability allowed him to dream of new physics and create scientific revolutions, including his masterpiece, the theory of general relativity. (...) Today, a window of opportunity is beginning to open for...
view entire post
Einsteiniana: Reviving the Old Money-Spinner
Celebrating Einstein Through 100 Years Of General Relativity: "Albert Einstein is probably the most well-known scientific genius. His creative ability allowed him to dream of new physics and create scientific revolutions, including his masterpiece, the theory of general relativity. (...) Today, a window of opportunity is beginning to open for those of us in the physics community who wish to communicate Einstein's vision to the public. Two years from now, in 2015, we will mark the 100th anniversary of the year Einstein discovered general relativity. The Celebrating Einstein event, launched in anticipation of the centennial, tells the story of Einstein to the world and shares the excitement of Einstein's theory. To organize the project, we're working with artists, musicians, composers, scientists, dancers, filmmakers, historians, architects and educators on a series of interconnected events designed to engage the general public. Celebrating Einstein begins in 2013 with a series of free public events in Bozeman, Mont., but everyone in the world - including you - can join the celebration. (...) Einstein devised a completely new description of gravity. First, he realized that objects in the universe exist in three dimensions of space and one of time. He then combined these into a four-dimensional spacetime."
Spacetime was just an absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Nowadays most Einsteinians know that and, unlike Einsteinians involved in the "Celebrating Einstein" project, extract career and money from debunking spacetime (the NEW money-spinner):
"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage."Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"
"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.""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. "But the problem so far has been that many cosmologists are wedded to the concept.""What is time? Is our perception of time passing an illusion which hides a deeper, timeless reality? Or is it real, indeed, the most real aspect of our experience of the world? Einstein said that, "the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion," and many contemporary theorists agree that time emerges from a more fundamental timeless quantum universe. But in recent cosmological speculation, this timeless picture of nature seems to have reached a dead end, populated by infinite numbers of imagined unobservable universes. In this talk, Lee Smolin explains why he changed his mind about the nature of time. Like many fellow theorists, he used to believe time is an illusion, but he now embraces the view that time is real..."Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 17, 2013 @ 07:45 GMT
Clever Einsteinians typically accept both Einsteinian time and Newtonian time. For instance, John Norton, Etienne Klein and Lee Smolin fiercely believe in Divine Albert's Divine Theory and yet:
"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in...
view entire post
Clever Einsteinians typically
accept both Einsteinian time and Newtonian time. For instance, John Norton, Etienne Klein and Lee Smolin fiercely believe in Divine Albert's Divine Theory and yet:
"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."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..."
"Etienne Klein exprime sa sympathie pour une solution intermédiaire entre le présentisme et la théorie de l'univers-bloc... (...) Etienne Klein: "Mais ces deux interprétations, univers-bloc et présentisme, sont loin d'avoir clos le débat. Dans le premier cas, l'existence même du cours du temps est relativisée, ou bien, selon une manoeuvre idéaliste assez classique, transformée sans que l'on nous précise comment en un produit de notre conscience : ce serait seulement par et pour une conscience que se succéderaient les instants du monde. De surcroît, l'interprétation de l'univers-bloc ne semble pas aisément compatible avec l'indéterminisme de la physique quantique qui, d'une certaine façon, laisse l'avenir ouvert à plusieurs possibilités. Quand au présentisme, il s'accorde mal avec la théorie de la relativité restreinte..."Etienne Klein: "D'où ma proposition, sans attendre que les physiciens accordent leurs violons, ne faudrait-il pas bricoler d'urgence une habile synthèse entre le présentisme et l'univers bloc, les mélanger astucieusement pour donner corps à l'idée que le futur existe déjà, que c'est une authentique réalité, mais que cette réalité n'est pas complètement configurée, pas intégralement définie, qu'il y a encore place pour du jeu, des espaces pour la volonté, le désir, l'invention."
Lee Smolin: "The scientific case for time being an illusion is formidable. That is why the consequences of adopting the view that time is real are revolutionary. (...) Einstein's theories of relativity make even stronger arguments that time is inessential to a fundamental description of the world, as I'll discuss in chapter 6. Relativity strongly suggests that the whole history of the world is a timeless unity; present, past, and future have no meaning apart from human subjectivity. Time is just another dimension of space, and the sense we have of experiencing moments passing is an illusion behind which is a timeless reality. (...) In Part I, I will present the case from science for believing that time is an illusion. In Part II, I will demolish those arguments and show why time must be taken to be real if fundamental physics and cosmology are to overcome the crises they currently face."
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."
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 19, 2013 @ 08:40 GMT
Self-brainwashing in Einsteiniana:
Brian Greene: "Now, however, modern physics' notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the familiar experience of time with "painful but inevitable resignation." The developments since his era have only widened the disparity between common experience and scientific...
view entire post
Self-brainwashing in Einsteiniana:
Brian Greene: "Now, however, modern physics' notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the familiar experience of time with "painful but inevitable resignation." The developments since his era have only widened the disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there's time as understood scientifically, and then there's time as experienced intuitively. For decades, I've struggled to bring my experience closer to my understanding. In my everyday routines, I delight in what I know is the individual's power, however imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I often conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition into past, present and future being a useful but subjective organization."
The process is extremely difficult and painful:
George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
S.E. Grimm wrote on Mar. 17, 2013 @ 13:15 GMT
Pencho Valev, 14/17-03-2013
I have read your links, even Etienne Klein. I am familiarly with all these subjects. Nevertheless, what is your question? Or did you only want to inform everyone?
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 3, 2013 @ 10:32 GMT
"Cutting the threads of the spacetime fabric and reinstating the aether could lead to a theory of quantum gravity."?
Do we really need an aether as to understand light as electromagnetic wave?
Thanks to Pentcho I got aware of what I consider a mistake.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 10, 2013 @ 07:45 GMT
After All, Where Are the Einsteinians ?
Lee Smolin 2005: "Where are the Einsteinians?"
The answer is clear now:
Einsteiniana's high priests have all left the sinking ship:
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity,...
view entire post
After All, Where Are the Einsteinians ?
Lee Smolin 2005: "Where are the Einsteinians?"
The answer is clear now:
Einsteiniana's high priests have all
left the sinking ship:
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."
"It is still not clear who is right, SAYS JOHN NORTON, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."
Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, SAYS SMOLIN."
Einsteiniana's zombies get no support from their superiors and
are gradually disintegrating.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 11, 2013 @ 06:25 GMT
Einsteinians will disappear but Divine Albert will remain - he is an integral part of the spirit of our civilization:
"The Riverside Church in New York, west portal - upper line, second of right. In 1930, during a stay in New York, Albert Einstein and his wife visited the Riverside Church, too. During the detailed guided tour through the church Einstein was also shown the sculptures at the west portal. He was told that only one of the sculptures there represented a living person, and that was he himself. What Einstein is supposed to have thought in that moment when he heard that information and saw himself immortalized in stone? Contemporaries reported that he looked at the sculpture calmly and thoughtfully."
Divine Albert and his apostlesDIVINE EINSTEIN. "No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 11, 2013 @ 09:36 GMT
Baez: "the Standard Model ... takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand ... Relativity". I reiterate my naive question:
Did the LHC also confirm Philip Warren Anderson's 1962 non-relativistic mechanism or only its 1964 relativistic pendant by half a dozen theoreticians?
I admire the Nobel committee for their courage not to award Einstein the Nobel price for his SR.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 12, 2013 @ 07:00 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science
A light source emits pulses at time intervals Ts. A stationary receiver/observer receives the pulses at time intervals Tr=Ts. For that observer the speed of the pulses is:
c = L/Tr = L/Ts
where L is the distance between the pulses (arbitrarily chosen by the source). So far special relativity and sane science agree.
Now the receiver/observer starts moving towards the source at one third of the speed of the pulses themselves. Accordingly, Tr is shortened - for the moving observer we have:
Tr' = (3/4)Ts
Again, special relativity and sane science are in agreement:
Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) ...the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected... (...) 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."
Finally, sane science concludes that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer has increased:
c' = L/Tr' = (4/3)c
Special relativity says nothing. Days and weeks pass in silence but then again winds from all over the world start bringing the victorious tunes of "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity".
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 12, 2013 @ 08:42 GMT
Pentcho,
Your polemic against Einstein is here schizophrenic too. As Peter told you, a person at the receiving position can only measure the time between two crests of the incoming wave. The reciprocal is frequency. The person can only calculate the speed from that time or frequency if he knows the wavelength, or vice versa. Writing "L is the distance between the pulses (arbitrarily chosen by the source)" you left the assumed perspective of the receiver as Einstein used to do too. Nobody can be at two different places at a time. Schizophrenia means being unable to correctly relate surrounding things to themselves.
I didn't write this in support of SR. I appreciate some serious arguments that you quoted.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 21, 2013 @ 12:44 GMT
Eckard,
Thanks for your perception. Pentcho should respond. QM's uncertainty principle and Copenhagen interpretation are then also allowed compatibility with the SR postulates, if not the nonsensical assumption that only an 'absolute' background was possible, and subsequent confusion of 'interpretation'.
The recent confirmed uncertainty verification is here, showing that the wavelength CHANGES in presenting itself for measurement by complying with detector frame'c' (considered here as '
disturbance of the system').
DFM - Heisenberg 'Disturbance' confirmed.The implications seem to be a little broader than is immediately apparent, as referred in my essays, which you should now find far more comprehendable.
Thanks
Peter
PS. Unfortunately Akinbo (below) seems clearly correct, as my post elsewhere. Your proposal is ok for a limited domain but incomplete. Simply adding Higgs field local propagation frames completes it entirely equivalent to the wavelength/speed 'frame change' solution above.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 05:48 GMT
Peter,
I am sorry, I cannot see how the paper you quoted confirms your DFM and allows "compatibility with the SR postulates, if not the nonsensical assumption that only an 'absolute' background was possible, and subsequent confusion of 'interpretation'..".
Maybe, I will never understand your reasoning. If you are as intelligent as you are claiming them you will perhaps be able to explain what is wrong with my own reasoning instead of declaring it incomplete. Are your "Higgs field local propagation frames" more consistent with Michelson's null result than Maxwell's aether?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 13, 2013 @ 04:10 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science II
"Physics is at a crossroads," said cosmologist Neil Turok, speaking to a class of young scientists in September at the Perimeter Institute, which he directs. "In a sense we've entered a very deep crisis." (...) Some physicists are starting to question whether or not our universe is natural. This cuts to the heart of why our reality has the features...
view entire post
Special Relativity and Sane Science II
"Physics is at a crossroads," said cosmologist Neil Turok, speaking to a class of young scientists in September at the Perimeter Institute, which he directs. "In a sense we've entered a very deep crisis." (...) Some physicists are starting to question whether or not our universe is natural. This cuts to the heart of why our reality has the features that it does: that is, full of quarks and electricity AND A PARTICULAR SPEED OF LIGHT. This problem, the naturalness or unnaturalness of our universe, can be likened to a weird thought experiment. Suppose you walk into a room and find a pencil balanced perfectly vertical on its sharp tip. That would be a fairly unnatural state for the pencil to be in because any small deviation would have caused it to fall down. This is how physicists have found the universe: a bunch of rather well-tuned fundamental constants have been discovered that produce the reality that we see."
The "bunch of rather well-tuned fundamental constants" produce a "reality" that only Bingo the Einsteiniano sees:
Bingo !!! Bingo the Clown-O!!! In the following video Bingo the Einsteiniano demonstrates how both the frequency and the speed of light (relative to the observer) vary with the speed of the observer but teaches other Bingos that they should only see the frequency vary while the speed of light gloriously remains constant, independent of the speed of the observer, absolutely independent, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
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."
Now Bingo the Einsteiniano teaches other Bingos that, not only for light waves but also for sound waves, the wavelength varies with the speed of the observer so that the speed of the waves relative to the observer gloriously remains constant, independent of the speed of the observer, absolutely independent, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
"The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source."
In Divine Albert's world the old principle of Ignatius of Loyola is valid and Bingo the Einsteiniano 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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 15, 2013 @ 21:10 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science III
Insofar as the speed of light is concerned, Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory was wrong but still sane science. It was sane, although wrong, to assume that the speed of light (relative to the observer) was independent of the speed of the emitter but it would have been totally insane to assume that this speed was independent of the speed of...
view entire post
Special Relativity and Sane Science III
Insofar as the speed of light is concerned, Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory was wrong but still sane science. It was sane, although wrong, to assume that the speed of light (relative to the observer) was independent of the speed of the emitter but it would have been totally insane to assume that this speed was independent of the speed of the observer as well. Maxwell was not "totally insane" of course:
John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
Gabrielle Bonnet: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."
Einstein knew that the speed-of-light-independent-of-speed-of-observer concept was totally insane but still found it profitable to introduce it, after some wrestling:
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."
So Maxwell said the speed of light (relative to the observer) did depend on the speed of the observer, Einstein said it didn't. How are such problems solved in Divine Albert's world? By changing the past, as in Big Brother's world: nowadays 99% of the Einsteinians teach that Maxwell also said the speed of light didn't depend on the speed of the observer, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
"He [Maxwell] also showed the speed of light is independent of the motion of both the source and the observer."Françoise Balibar: "Maxwell rentre en scène : il pense que la lumière se propage dans un milieu matériel baptisé éther, ce qui est une erreur, mais il pense aussi que la lumière est un champ électromagnétique, ça c'est révolutionnaire. Il met au point ses célèbres équations dans lesquelles la vitesse de la lumière est la même dans l'éther (référentiel absolu) et dans tout autre référentiel en translation uniforme."
Françoise Balibar: "En effet, lors d'un changement de référentiel à un autre en translation uniforme par rapport à lui, la vitesse de la lumière (appelée ici c) ne devient pas c+V; elle reste c. Cette circonstance, résultat obligé de la théorie de la lumière développée au milieu du XIXè siècle par Maxwell...."
"As Maxwell's equations provide a single wave solution, with a velocity c, Einstein proposed the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light: The velocity of light in free space is the same for all inertial observers."Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured."
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 08:44 GMT
The references are useful and point out the dilemma, but without indicating a possible solution.
1."...if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to"
If the current speculation from Quantum gravity that space can exhibit a discrete nature is correct, would the background to measure light speed not then emerge?
2. Although the evidence is very strong, it is not yet an unassailable fact that non-baryonic matter exists and that it is over 80 times more abundant in our galaxy than baryonic matter.
If however this is the case, firstly when proto-planets are forming it cannot be avoided that planets are actually of mixed matter content, i.e. consist both baryonic and non-baryonic matter. Secondly, unless the Earth is so unique as to be specially excluded from interacting gravitationally with this transparent and abundant matter, so abundant that our solar system is orbits the galactic centre not by its own motion but is being carried along in the current of this non-baryonic matter's motion as it rotates about our galactic centre at 225km/s, would it then be escapable that we have an earth-bound luminiferous medium, even if not exactly an 'ether'? If escapable, how so?
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 17, 2013 @ 15:15 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science IV
Sane science says that the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin cannot be both responsible and not responsible for her youthfulness. Special relativity gives an indirect reply: half of the Einsteinians teach that the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for her youthfulness, the other half teach it...
view entire post
Special Relativity and Sane Science IV
Sane science says that the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin cannot be both responsible and not responsible for her youthfulness. Special relativity gives an indirect reply: half of the Einsteinians teach that the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for her youthfulness, the other half teach it isn't:
The turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for her youthfulness and cannot be ignored:
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein 1918: "According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 [traveller sharply turns around] U2 [the travelling twin's clock] happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1 [the sedentary twin's clock]. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 [traveller moves with constant speed away from sedentary brother] and 4 [traveller moves with constant speed towards sedentary brother]."
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."
The turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is not responsible for her youthfulness and can be ignored:
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "Modified twin paradox *** Consider the following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also, in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and moves to the left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they compare the readings on their clocks." [There is no turn-around acceleration at all in this "modified twin paradox" and yet the travelling twin gloriously returns younger.]
Needless to say, the doublethink
kills the rational mind instantaneously and irreversibly.
Once dead, the rational mind readily engages in
triplethink, quadruplethink etc.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 20, 2013 @ 19:44 GMT
Prntcho,
"Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
He [Maxwell] also showed the speed of light is independent of the motion of both the source and the observer."
I see such quotes of you damaging the reputation not just of of Florida State University. You know, I disagree with emitter theories, with Maxwell's idea of a light-carrying aether relative to which the earth is moving, and with Einstein's relativity. I am arguing that the speed of light does not depend on the motion of source and receiver but on their belonging distance divided by the time of flight. Maxwell did definitely not show that. Michelson showed already in 1881 that the hypothesis of a light-carrying aether in motion re earth is untenable.
[Stachel] "How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?" My answer is: The speed of light in vacuum does not at all refer to a motion of the observer/receiver. It refers to the difference of its position at the moment of arrival and the position of the emitter at the moment of emission at the moment of emission.
Best,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 21, 2013 @ 08:26 GMT
Eckard,
How can light know in advance what its position on arrival will be?
Apart from emitter and receiver, has light velocity not been shown to also depend on what lies between the two, e.g glass or water?
Apart from what lies between the two, has light arrival time with emitter and receiver position fixed not been shown to depend on whether what lies between the two is static or flows towards or against the light direction?
It may therefore apply too simplistic to say light velocity "refers to the difference of its position at the moment of arrival and the position of the emitter at the moment of emission at the moment of emission"
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 04:51 GMT
Akibo,
I wrote: "The speed of light IN VACUUM ... refers to the difference...". You are correct in that my sentence would be too simplistic if I did omit "in vacuum".
You also wrote: "How can light know in advance what its position on arrival will be?"
Is such teleological argument justified in this case? I don't think so.
The speed of light (in vacuum) is c relative to distances in space, and we used to agree on that if the distance between emitter and receiver changes during the time of flight then this relative to each other motion can be attributed to a constant velocity v. Don't confuse this v with any absolute i.e. referring to emitter, receiver, or medium velocity. Since there is no preferred point of reference in space, there is no absolute reference for a velocity and energy, too.
My consideration is distinguished from
- emitter theory that refers c to an absolute velocity of the emitter,
- Einstein's SR that refers c to the receiver/observer assumed at rest,
- Maxwell's aether theory that refers c to the absolute velocity of a conjectured light-carrying medium.
What about time, those like Tom who believe in spacetime ignore that there is an absolute zero of elapsed time. They have even trouble with the still to be capitalized (like God) Big Bang. To them, believed finiteness of time from the moment of creation implies finiteness of space.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 11:27 GMT
" ... within Einstein-aether theory -- in contrast to general relativity -- there is a preferred time that can be used as an absolute reference to mark events against. It is as if spacetime were filled with a fluid -- an aether -- which defines a 'rest frame' at each event."
A preferred time implies a preferred space. Even if an absolute t = 0 could be chosen, the evolution of the system would never map t_0 --> T_1 linearly.
This is because any hypothetical aether which might exist to mediate motion between bodies would not retain information of the bodies' relative positions even were the momentum known; an infinitely stiff aether is not differentiable from the vacuum, as Einstein deduced.
In order to have a preferred rest frame, one must designate a preferred state of motion -- i.e., a classical two-way measure -- which is why gravitons are spin 2 particles in quantum field theory. That is, information instantaneously exchanged between two bodies is retained by the particles, and not by the spacetime. Also as Einstein deduced, a field theory obeys Lorentz invariance regardless of scale, or general relativity doesn't hold at any scale.
We can only recover the role of spacetime in any interaction (event) geometrically, because there are no preferred rest frames, in principle. The stress-energy tensor is symmetric.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Oct. 22, 2013 @ 06:29 GMT
Hi Tom,
I think what a lot of people are missing is that there is actually two different kinds of time. There is an absolute time related to the cosmos and the event that started this all. No matter which direction you look out into space, it points to the "big bang" event. Then there is proper time that is relativistic. It is more of a local kind of time.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 22, 2013 @ 09:48 GMT
Fred,
There is apparently two kinds of space as well. That which is expanding, based on the redshift of light and that which is stable, based on the speed of light, since this light is apparently being "carried" along by the expansion.
Remember light travels about 186,000 miles a second, so a lightyear is about a trillion miles. Therefore this measure of space has to remain constant, if those galaxies are moving apart, such that the light takes longer to travel from one to another.
The question is, which is Einstein's ruler? That which is constant, or that which is expanding? Which is the denominator and which is the numerator?
Or are we missing something else entirely?
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 22, 2013 @ 11:05 GMT
Fred,
True. I have run out of ways to explain it -- thanks for adding a clearer exposition.
John,
"Or are we missing something else entirely?"
Yes.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 22, 2013 @ 16:26 GMT
Tom,
Though we all think it is something different.
One way to consider the various options and proposals is as to how far into the model do we need a reset? Is this just a head cold, or 2nd stage lung cancer?
The establishment is the establishment because any system will naturally promote its most fervent believers and demote those more skeptical. Think financial markets, political parties and religious sects. So the nature is to build out as quickly as possible. This will include minor setbacks, given some proposals quickly collapse when the weight of further building is put on them, but we are now to the stage where the ideas being put forth are so airy and nebulous, they don't apply any real demands on those questionable prior levels and so the fact there is no breakage is taken as a sign all is well, even as those looking on, scratch their heads and lose interest.
The stage has come where the process starts to lose momentum. This usually leads to infighting. Now in this situation the existing split is between the more conservative groups/standard model and the more extravagant ones/strings, susy, multiverses, but the conservatives will have to look a little more deeply into themselves than they may wish, to find another direction this model leads. Some philosophy might be involved. Premises and assumptions might have to be examined. A whole can of worms that would be. Physics might go to the doctor for a cold and find it has cancer. It's happened before. Theories are mortal, even when their adherents think otherwise.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 22, 2013 @ 17:56 GMT
"Though we all think it is something different."
Not those who trust relativity to be recovered within their models. I give little chance to any theory that defies special relativity or thermodynamics.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 22, 2013 @ 20:13 GMT
Tom,
How about theories which cannot distinguish between past and future, or why time goes in one direction? Are these theories incomplete, or to be considered proof there is no difference between past and future and the passage of time is only an illusion?
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 09:43 GMT
Ps,
Yet from the constant dynamic of change explicit to thermodynamics, one would think the unidirectional sequencing to be fundamental. How do you related the physics of thermodynamics and the math of special relativity?
Or are they just separate and apply to different models, like QM and GR?
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 11:35 GMT
"Yet from the constant dynamic of change explicit to thermodynamics, one would think the unidirectional sequencing to be fundamental."
Why?
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 15:38 GMT
Tom,
Does a thermodynamic system go in reverse? Do hot gases start to contract and sink, relative to cold ones, do vortices and eddies start spinning in the other direction and pushing out what they had been pulling in? Isn't thermodynamics classical physics and wouldn't the inertia of the system mitigate against it going the other direction? Thermodynamics means temperature propelled systems and temperature is a function of energy, so wouldn't that mean the energy being reversed and isn't the premise of energy that it is a force, so reversing it would seem to go against its essential nature.
?
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 16:08 GMT
"Does a thermodynamic system go in reverse?"
Yes.
"Do hot gases start to contract and sink, relative to cold ones, do vortices and eddies start spinning in the other direction and pushing out what they had been pulling in?"
No.
"Isn't thermodynamics classical physics ..."
Yes.
" ... and wouldn't the inertia of the system mitigate against it going the other direction?"
No.
"Thermodynamics means temperature propelled systems ..."
No.
" ... and temperature is a function of energy, ..."
No.
" ... so wouldn't that mean the energy being reversed ..."
No.
"... and isn't the premise of energy that it is a force, ..."
No.
"... so reversing it would seem to go against its essential nature."
No.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 17:52 GMT
Tom,
Then can you give me a thumbnail sketch of thermodynamics that doesn't have an energy based dynamical change, where a directional sequence cannot be derived, thus nothing that would resemble the temporal effect of changing configuration?
In other words, thermodynamics compatible with blocktime.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 17:58 GMT
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 18:49 GMT
John, I reply often to you and James, because I see you as two sides of a coin. I think you are wrong, and go too far. I think James is right and doesn't go far enough.
James says "All is controlled," and I agree, with the addition of a qualifier " ... by you." Everyone's "I" implies an infinity of "you's" and everyone's "you" implies a singularity of "I". In other words, there is nothing external to either I or you that controls anything, i.e., that serves as a cause to the effects we experience.
The support with which I can defend this assertion, comes from thermodynamics:
I hope you have digested the first page of the lecture on the first law before you read this.
Peter Atkins, whom many (including I) regard as one of the best physical chemists in the world, solved Aristotle's first-cause paradox by postulating an "infinitely lazy creator." This postulate perfectly defines the limit of the least action principle. It's also observed to be true physically -- the equilibrium state at every scale assures us that while we do not observe reversibility of events, we do experience reversibility of processes.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 19:58 GMT
Tom,
I will read that shortly and have no problem with being wrong. The whole trial and error thing, most of us are also rans. One point first;
"while we do not observe reversibility of events, we do experience reversibility of processes."
I have no problem with reversibility of processes, although it would seem some principle of least action would mean it would take far less energy to knock a cup off the table, then to reverse the consequences.
Time, on the other hand, might be measured in terms of particular processes, but the overall effect has to be explained as well and I will be interested to see how this essay on thermodynamics covers blocktime.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 20:03 GMT
Tom,
Just started reading. Lol. Did you read it?
"- Thus no truly reversible processes exist. However, many systems are
approximately reversible. And assuming reversible processes will greatly aid
our calculations of various thermodynamic state functions. "
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 20:17 GMT
Tom,
I admit I started skimming it after the first few pages, but it all seem to prove my point that the effects of time are not thermodynamically reversible. The relevant part;
"Reversibility
A reversible process is a process where the effects of following a thermodynamic
path can be undone be exactly reversing the path.
An easier definition is a process that is always at equilibrium even when undergoing a
change.
Phase changes and chemical equilibria are examples of reversible processes.
Ideally the composition throughout the system must be homogeneous.
- This requirement implies that the no gradients, currents or eddys can exist.
- To eliminate all inhomogeneities, a reversible process must occur infinitely
slow!
- Thus no truly reversible processes exist. However, many systems are
approximately reversible. And assuming reversible processes will greatly aid
our calculations of various thermodynamic state functions.
Reversibility during pressure changes ensures that
p = pex
That is, the pressure on the inside of the container is always equal to the pressure
exerted on the outside of the container."
So basically even only the most contained, ordered and simple processes can be reversed. What am I missing?
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 22:01 GMT
"So basically even only the most contained, ordered and simple processes can be reversed. What am I missing?"
Oh, just the most minor thing, John. The principle of least action, which is one of the most important physical principles that exists.
Lenny Susskind and Geroge Hrabvosky have the most delightful literary conceit built into their otherwise serious book, *The Theoretical Minimum.* Opening every chapter is a mock dialogue between "Lenny and George," in the manner of Steinbeck. Here's the one that opens the chapter on the principle of least action:
"Lenny was frustrated--not a good sign considering his size and strength--and his head hurt. "George, I can't remember all this stuff! Forces, masses, Newton's equations, momentum, energy. You told me that I didn't need to memorize stuff to do physics. Can't you just make it one thing to remember?"
"Okay, Lenny. Calm down. I'll make it simple. All you have to remember is that action is always stationary."
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
Tom,
So where is the time in that?
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 23, 2013 @ 23:03 GMT
Or, more to the point, since we are getting into the extremely abstract, where is is the thermodynamics?
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 00:07 GMT
Tom,
From Julian Barbour's Nature of Time, winning, essay;
"The configuration space of the universe is the key concept. In a universe of N particles, each particle position has 3 coordinates; 3N define a complete configuration, which corresponds to a unique representative point p in an abstract 3N -dimensional space U . As the universe’s configuration changes, p traces a curve in U . If the universe were to follow some arbitrary curve, no law would hold. The remarkably simple and beautiful principle of least action singles out the special curves in U for which Newton’s laws hold. I shall present it in a little-known timeless form: Jacobi’s principle.
You choose in U two points – two configurations of the universe. These are to remain fixed. You
consider all possible trial curves that join them continuously in U . In the usual formulation, all
trial curves are assumed to be traversed in a fixed pre-existing time interval. No such assumption is made here; it is unnecessary. All you need to do is divide each trial curve into very short segments.
For each segment, you calculate its action
δA = √2
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 00:16 GMT
The LateX seemed to have cut that off. The rest, minus the math;
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 00:25 GMT
Try that again;
"where sdi is the distance particle i has moved. Here E is not regarded as an energy but as a
fundamental constant (like the cosmological constant Λ [4]). The action A for the complete trial
curve is the sum of the actions δA for each segment; in the limit in which the segments are made
shorter and shorter, A tends to a finite limit.
Now comes the wonderful thing. For one of the trial curves, the action will be smaller than
for any other. For this extremal curve, and in general for no other joining the fixed end points,
the particles obey Newton’s laws with the emergent time defined by (3). This is a timeless law; it
determines a path, or history, in U . The key thing is that no time is assumed in advance. A time
worthy of the name does not exist on any of the non-extremal curves. Time emerges only on the
extremal curves."
There doesn't seem to be any mention of time being symmetric.
" As the universe’s configuration changes, p traces a curve in U." "trial curves are assumed to be traversed," "the distance particle i has moved," "The action A for the complete trial
curve is the sum of the actions δA for each segment," "the action will be smaller than for any other,"
It all seems about the process going in one direction.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 00:34 GMT
Tom,
" that action is always stationary."
Then again, all action is in the present, so it is the configurations which move future to past.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 11:47 GMT
John, I suggest you get Susskind's and Hrabovsky's book.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 15:36 GMT
Tom,
It's not really a complicated question; How do you reconcile thermodynamics and a blocktime model of time that is symmetric and can't differentiate between past and future and the links you've given me so far show directionality and minimal to no reversibility and now I'm supposed to think this latest finger pointing to out yonder is the answer? I think if you had the answer, you would have given it to me by now.
Basically I'm supposed to shut up and believe. Jesus Saves and string theory answers all.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 16:23 GMT
"I think if you had the answer, you would have given it to me by now."
I did. I take no responsibility for your failure to grasp it.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 16:50 GMT
Tom,
I find magic acts very interesting. If you reconciled thermodynamics with a theory of time that has no direction, is reversible and can't distinguish between what has happened and what might happen, I really would have remembered!
To quote from your very own link;
" Thus no truly reversible processes exist. However, many systems are approximately reversible. And assuming reversible processes will greatly aid our calculations of various thermodynamic state functions."
Belief is a powerful drug, but for those of us not imbibing, it looks like delusion and denial. The Emperor's new clothes are so very shiny and bright with all that gold.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 16:55 GMT
"Belief is a powerful drug ..."
So is reading without comprehending.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 18:15 GMT
" Thus no truly reversible processes exist."
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 19:19 GMT
John, being the genius that you are who doesn't have to actually know any physics to explain it -- suppose you explain the state function of temperature in thermodynamics without using reversibility.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 22:16 GMT
Tom,
On my phone here, so. I can't cut and paste, but the link you posted above goes into it quite succinctly. Temperature is the neat measurement, not what is being measured. Thermodynamics includes all the "dirty details," as that link put it. If you read that one short paragraph I keep posting, it states those physical processes can't be reversed, but is helpful for modeling to treat them as if they could. This goes to the situation with time. We can model it like a Dali painting, if necessary, but the map is not the territory. Spacetime is a map.
On a personal level, is the kid who said the emperor is naked, a genius, or just observant?
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 01:53 GMT
Tom,
And here is the very first paragraph from your very own link:
"State Functions
- A State Function is a thermodynamic quantity whose value depends only on the state at the moment, i. e., the temperature, pressure, volume, etc…
- The value of a state function is independent of the history of the system.
- Temperature is an example of a state function.
- The fact that temperature is a state function is extremely useful because it we can measure the temperature change in the system by knowing the initial temperature and the final temperature.
- In other words, we don’t need all of the nitty-gritty detail of a process to measure the change in the value of a state function.
- In contrast, we do need all of the nitty-gritty details to measure the heat or the work of a system."
I like to think through what I read, which further limits what I have the time to read.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 10:58 GMT
John,
You miss the moral of the Emperor's Clothes fable. It isn't about the little boy -- it's about the emperor and his willing acceptance of the delusion that what he thinks he knows, that isn't true.
I really do wish you would get hold of Susskind's and Hrabovsky's book. I think it would open your eyes. It is well and simply written, and designed for a popular...
view entire post
John,
You miss the moral of the Emperor's Clothes fable. It isn't about the little boy -- it's about the emperor and his willing acceptance of the delusion that what he thinks he knows, that isn't true.
I really do wish you would get hold of Susskind's and Hrabovsky's book. I think it would open your eyes. It is well and simply written, and designed for a popular audience.
I'm not going to go into great detail about thermodynamic reversibility, because until you understand the principle of least action, it won't make sense. Briefly, though, you write:
"If you read that one short paragraph I keep posting, it states those physical processes can't be reversed, but is helpful for modeling to treat them as if they could."
This is the reason I asked you to attempt explaining thermodynamic state changes without reversibility. Until you actually try and do the work, you won't get it. If you never try and do the work, you will walk around like a naked emperor, secure in your personal ability to imagine things that aren't there. Science, though, is about objective knowledge -- the clothing that we can all agree on.
"This goes to the situation with time."
Which is reversible, in all classical models.
"We can model it like a Dali painting, if necessary, but the map is not the territory. Spacetime is a map."
Not true. You've got this idea that time is a vector independent of space that depends on your personal choice of where it goes. None of this stuff about continuous spacetime actually has anything to do directly with thermodynamic reversibility. State functions, though, do have to consider time independent of space. Consider:
"- The fact that temperature is a state function is extremely useful because with it we can measure the temperature change in the system by knowing the initial temperature and the final temperature."
I hoped, perhaps unreasonably, that you would realize that without reversibility one could not have an interval of change in which final conditions could be predicted from knowledge of initial conditions. Like I said, though, you have to do the work in order to truly understand it.
Best,
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 15:58 GMT
Tom,
"that without reversibility one could not have an interval of change in which final conditions could be predicted from knowledge of initial conditions."
Epicycles were very useful and accurate for making predictions.
You can model time and thermodynamic processes in reverse, as easily as you can run a movie backwards, but. it. is. still. a. model.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 16:37 GMT
"Epicycles were very useful and accurate for making predictions."
They still are, if one wants to go to the trouble of calculating them.
"You can model time and thermodynamic processes in reverse, as easily as you can run a movie backwards, but. it. is. still. a. model."
John, a model is a solution to an equation or a set of equations. What keeps you from understanding the physics, is that you think the world is "just so," according to your "common sense" intuition. Classical processes *do* run in reverse, not just because you think it's an illusion, like reversing the direction of a film -- it's because there is no globally objective standard for the direction of time. For example, if a native of Zeta Reticuli (who lies in your past, because Zeta Reticuli is very far away) were receiving information about your life on Earth, it would not be your present that she is observing, it would be your past. You, on the other hand, are seeing *her* past. Which "past" is physically real? Both of them -- all physics is local.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 20:13 GMT
Tom,
A model is an explanation. Just because one model cannot explain certain phenomena, doesn't mean none can. We have been through this before. Whether it's starlight from a distant galaxy, ruins of ancient civilizations, or fossils in the ground, they are residuals of prior events. There is only the physiically real and it is constantly changing. What makes this change go in one direction is the inertia.
On phone and have to go.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 23:10 GMT
Tom,
From merriam-webster"physics : a property of matter by which something that is not moving remains still and something that is moving goes at the same speed and in the same direction until another thing or force affects it."
This is not my imagination. It's classical physics. Things just don't go in reverse, unless you apply the appropriate force.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 26, 2013 @ 11:09 GMT
Fine, John. Have a good life.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 26, 2013 @ 19:01 GMT
Tom,
I realize you think I'm hopelessly naive and you are right. I like asking simple questions. I've been doing it a long time and am quite used to being looked down on by those with sophisticated and complex lives. Now that many aspects of this complex society and economy are starting to crumble, I find others starting to ask simple questions.
Complexity is inherently interesting and mentally engrossing and many people spend their lives building and unraveling complexities, to the point of addiction. It naturally grows, until it becomes unstable and then has to reset back to a more stable level.
I know you think you are standing on stable ground and nothing will ever convince you otherwise. I have the sense there is much more to the story, but sometimes it takes a few steps back, to be able to keep moving forward.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 27, 2013 @ 10:39 GMT
"Now that many aspects of this complex society and economy are starting to crumble, I find others starting to ask simple questions."
That's what they said about the beginning of the Dark Ages.
Let's be clear about one thing, though -- I don't look down on you. I am just trying to bring us to an understanding of the difference between the simple questions, and the right questions.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 27, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT
Tom,
It looks like we are headed that way again. Credit is a bitch, even when you own the bank.
You state classical processes do run in reverse and link to a page that states only in models, not in reality. It raises questions in my mind as to the distinction between the model and what is being modeled.
Models are never the whole picture, because their very function is to isolate the salient points. When you have a model that distills time down to measures of duration, yet doesn't cover other features , such as directionality, why is it a problem to accept these are simply features not covered by the model, rather than insist they are not real, because the model doesn't explain them?
In my mind, that raises the model to the status of religious dogma, not scientific tool.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 27, 2013 @ 14:49 GMT
No John, you are heading that way again. I'm taking the other fork.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 27, 2013 @ 21:00 GMT
Tom,
I'm certainly not denying you the right to think whatever you believe to be right. I'm just trying to explain why I see it differently.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 28, 2013 @ 11:01 GMT
John, do you honestly think that any point of view that one may adopt for a scientific issue is valid?
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 28, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Tom,
Only if it is logically coherent, contains a minimum number of assumptions and fits the broadest number of observations, without having to include physically invisible patches.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 28, 2013 @ 15:18 GMT
"Only if it is logically coherent ..."
Do you find your premises logically coherent?
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 28, 2013 @ 16:02 GMT
Tom,
That the consequence of physical change is that potential coalesces in actual and then recedes into residual, results in the effect we call time and the physical inertia of this process means the effects are not naturally reversible?
Vs. Measures of distance and duration being interconnected means there is some physical fabric of spacetime, in which all events simply exist in their position in the geometry, with the passage of time being an illusion, no real reason why it doesn't go in reverse, etc.
Yes, I do.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 28, 2013 @ 16:12 GMT
"That the consequence of physical change is that potential coalesces in actual and then recedes into residual, results in the effect we call time and the physical inertia of this process means the effects are not naturally reversible?"
But John -- what the heck does that even *mean*? Collapse of the wavefunction? Contradiction: time isn't involved in the hypothetical collpase. Inertia? -- it is certainly reversible.
"Vs. Measures of distance and duration being interconnected means there is some physical fabric of spacetime, in which all events simply exist in their position in the geometry, with the passage of time being an illusion, no real reason why it doesn't go in reverse, etc."
There *are* real reasons why time is an illusion in spacetime geometry. You just haven't learned them.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 28, 2013 @ 18:34 GMT
Tom,
I didn't say anything about "collapse of the wavefunction."
As an example of what I am saying; Prior to the running of a race with ten entrants, there are ten potential winners. After the race has run, there is one actual winner. When events are in the future, there are a range of potential outcomes. The physical process of all the constituent parts interacting determines what the actual result is. The future becomes past, as a consequence of this activity. There is no overall clock, or time, or universal rate by which these events transpire. They are all their own actions, within their own particular context and as they interact, exchanging energy and evolving forms, sequences emerge. Like days emerge from the sun shining on a rotating planet, or waves from wind across water.
We just happen to be particular points of reference and we experience this process as the series of events in which we participate. Duration is the action occurring between reference events. We measure it by comparing it to similar sequences. Rather than revealing some deeper nature of this process, it actually does the opposite. By reducing the sequential effect of change to a measure of the sequence, you only have a part of a part, rather than a view to the larger process that created the sequence. So when you base your model on this very narrow concept, it is no wonder much of the dynamics related to the passage of time cannot be explained.
The reason time is an illusion in spacetime geometry is because the actual passage of time is not explained by spacetime geometry.
"Inertia? -- it is certainly reversible."
Only with the requisite energy and organization and that has to be drawn from some larger context.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 29, 2013 @ 00:48 GMT
"As an example of what I am saying; Prior to the running of a race with ten entrants, there are ten potential winners. After the race has run, there is one actual winner. When events are in the future, there are a range of potential outcomes."
That's so easy to believe, John, and most take it for granted. However, it doesn't explain anything. Evolution, for instance, is highly deterministic not in spite of -- rather, because of -- the random mutations that power natural selection. It doesn't "just" happen. We look for underlying causes (not all of them in the "past," because there are positive as well as negative feedback loops) that converge on an objective explanation. To simply speak of emergent effects as if they sprang from the head of Zeus isn't the kind of explanation that science entertains.
"The reason time is an illusion in spacetime geometry is because the actual passage of time is not explained by spacetime geometry."
It is, if there's no ' ... actual passage of time,' even though you believe it to be so. The least action principle has that covered.
"'Inertia? -- it is certainly reversible.'
Only with the requisite energy and organization and that has to be drawn from some larger context."
Nah. It's just good old classical physics, no pontificating required.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 29, 2013 @ 02:06 GMT
Tom,
We have been around this argument many times and as I said, you have your reasons for seeing reality as you do and I have my reasons for seeing it as I do. I realize there is much that is quite deterministic(otherwise known as inertia), but that still doesn't negate the effect of time, which is something I have to deal with on a continuous basis. Maybe it is just naive realism, but in dealing with my naively realistic world, I find it more effective and efficient to see it as action in space, creating change and time is an effect and often subjective measure of that change. There is no need for blocktime and good old classical physics doesn't really go in reverse.
"Thus no truly reversible processes exist. However, many systems are approximately reversible. And assuming reversible processes will greatly aid our calculations of various thermodynamic state functions."Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 29, 2013 @ 10:04 GMT
Naive realism is seductive, John, if one only wishes to have a personal non-scientific point of view of what "reality" is. I fail to see, however, that unless one understands
classical mechanics and its well tested principle of time conservation, how one can even come close to understandng the exotic physics you talk about all the time.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 29, 2013 @ 16:10 GMT
Tom,
"Now consider an initial condition in which all the gas particles are initially in a corner of a large box. By Poincaré's theorem, the gas particles must eventually return to their initial state in the corner of the box. How long is this recurrence time? In order to answer this, consider dividing the box up into M small cells of volume v. The total number of microstates available to the gas varies with N like . The number of microstates corresponding to all the particles occupying a single cell of volume v is . Thus, the probability of observing the system in this microstate is approximately . Even if v=V/2, for , the probability is vanishingly small. The Poincaré recurrence time, on the other hand, is proportional to the inverse of this probability or . Again, since , if v=V/2, the required time is
which is many orders of magnitude longer than the current age of the universe. Thus, although the system will return arbitrarily close to its initial state, the time required for this is unphysically long and will never be observed. Over times relevant for observation, given similar such initial conditions, the system will essentially always evolve in the same way, which is to expand and fill the box and essentially never to the opposite."
Do you ever actually read and think through what you link? Not only would it take longer than the (presumed) age of the universe for even the possibility these particles will return to the one corner of the box, that doesn't account for all the particular particles returning to their exact locations in that corner, which would be a necessary requirement for actual reversibility. And that's just for a mathematical model of one box of gas.
I'm not going to hold my breath for the glass to bounce back up on the table and put itself together again, even for several ages of the universe.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 29, 2013 @ 17:45 GMT
"Do you ever actually read and think through what you link?"
Why no, John. I just randomly pick sources in hopes that you'll understand one of them.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 29, 2013 @ 20:41 GMT
Tom,
It is apparent. What was described wasn't reversibility, but a return to very approximate initial conditions. At no point is it argued the gas reverses course and retraces all the original trajectories. Simply that at some point in the very distant future, the gas might accumulate in the corner. Does it even matter if it's the same corner, since it is only an approximation?
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 29, 2013 @ 22:18 GMT
Excellent, John. I find it a shame that your capacity to finally ask questions that would lead to the physical insights that we have already mastered, is usually betrayed by your scandalized "common sense." Why is that?
Will you attempt to see where the questions lead?
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 29, 2013 @ 23:08 GMT
Tom,
You seem to keep losing the thread of the conversation. How does one reconcile thermodynamics with the spacetime convention of time as symmetric? You have posted two links which argue against your own position. The question is when will you be willing consider where the questions lead?
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 09:43 GMT
Tom and John M,
I agree with John. Moreover, I tend to look critical on Poincaré because
- he did not trust in G. Cantor, but he failed to prove him wrong
- he didn't clarify that Einstein's Poincaré synchronization is inapt
- he blindly followed Lorentz concerning Michelson's null result.
Admittedly, I only read a few of his papers (in translation).
As to illustrate my skepticism towards the relationship between reality and arguments like Poincaré'a recurrence theorem, I would like you to calculate the number of your male and female ancestors let's say for the last 10 000 generations: two for one generation, four for two, etc.
Best,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 10:15 GMT
"The question is when will you be willing consider where the questions lead?"
No, John, the responsibility is still on you. I am done with posting detailed explanation to have it thrown back in my face without examination.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 10:19 GMT
"As to illustrate my skepticism towards the relationship between reality and arguments like Poincaré'a recurrence theorem, I would like you to calculate the number of your male and female ancestors let's say for the last 10 000 generations: two for one generation, four for two, etc"
Poincare recurrence is not linear, Eckard.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 11:10 GMT
Tom,
????
You post links and I paste the sections of your own links where they say physical events do not reverse, even if simplistic models can give some approximation of reversal??
You don't listen to anything I say, now you don't listen to your own sources and I'm the one to blame for failure to communicate, when my main crime is to raise questions.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 11:12 GMT
Eckard,
Thanks. It's a basic issue, but one which deserves more attention.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 13:18 GMT
" ... my main crime is to raise questions."
And your main responsibility is to understand when they've already been answered.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 15:11 GMT
This thread has covered several subjects, but, there is one that I will pick out and focus on:
From Tom's link: "The form of the equations does not change! One of the implications of time reversal symmetry is as follows: Suppose a system is evolved forward in time starting from some initial condition up to a maximum time t; at t, the evolution is stopped, the sign of the velocity of each...
view entire post
This thread has covered several subjects, but, there is one that I will pick out and focus on:
From Tom's
link: "The form of the equations does not change! One of the implications of time reversal symmetry is as follows: Suppose a system is evolved forward in time starting from some initial condition up to a maximum time t; at t, the evolution is stopped, the sign of the velocity of each particle in the system is reversed, i.e., a time reversal transformation is performed, and the system is allowed to evolve once again for another time interval of length t; the system will return to its original starting point in phase space, i.e., the system will return to its initial condition. Now from the point of view of mechanics and the microcanonical ensemble, the initial conditions (for the first segment of the evolution) and the conditions created by reversing the signs of the velocities for initiating the second segment are equally valid and equally probably, both being points selected from the constant energy hypersurface. Therefore, from the point of view of mechanics, without a priori knowledge of which segment is the forward evolving trajectory and which is the time reversed trajectory, it should not be possible to say which is which."
This description and the math that preceded it is in error. The error being that the proposed 'time reversal' is an incomplete confused representation of velocity reversal. The velocity is reversed in one math statement and not reversed in another. Yet the two are combined into a derivation as if they are mathematically compatible. Also, time is said to be reversed and yet is not reversed. A reversal of time is a return to the past. The mathematics does not describe a return to the past.
There is, of course, more to be said to clarify what was done in error in the math. The first point to be made is that the velocity cannot be claimed to be reversed so long as dq
i remains positive.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 15:41 GMT
" A reversal of time is a return to the past. The mathematics does not describe a return to the past."
Whose past?
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 15:51 GMT
Tom,
Presumably I should be equally responsible to understand when they are not being answered and actively avoided.
Unless, what you really mean is that it has been determined these issues are beyond question and I should only bow to the model.
James,
There are a lot of questionable assumptions in that model, such that any system, even one in which velocities are reversed, is presumably closed and thus subject to overall entropy, so the particles are not going to follow their original trajectories back to their original starting points, but Tom is not about to admit thermodynamics and spacetime are incompatible and has his hands over his ears and eyes, in order not to see or hear any evil. Given the institutional inertia behind this presumption, his sense of obligation must be overwhelming.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 17:57 GMT
"" A reversal of time is a return to the past. The mathematics does not describe a return to the past.""
"Whose past?"
The past.
Continuing, as I understand John to have said, paraphrasing: The process of returning to an initial condition is one of moving forward in time.
The so-called re-appearing initial condition is a misidentification. The final condition has to do...
view entire post
"" A reversal of time is a return to the past. The mathematics does not describe a return to the past.""
"Whose past?"
The past.
Continuing, as I understand John to have said, paraphrasing: The process of returning to an initial condition is one of moving forward in time.
The so-called re-appearing initial condition is a misidentification. The final condition has to do with positions. The past occurrences that led to that condition are unknown from observing the new 'initial' condition.
If it is said that all particles are identical so that observing their final positions is sufficient, without needing to retrace their paths, to claim that the initial condition has been regained, then the claim fails because velocity is not involved in that claim. It is not known from observing the new 'initial' condition that change occurred.
If it is added that it is known that they returned to those positions by undergoing reversed velocities, then it becomes required that the paths must be described for each particle from the actual initial positions to the return to the initial positions. In either case, the past is not traversed as if time reversed. The velocities reverse because dq
I is reversed.
In the case of reversing the complete record of the velocities traveled, even if one clams that that is tantamount to reliving the past, each look at those velocities at anytime in the past would show that the velocity has not changed. Its sign in the past was positive and returning into the past one would see a positive velocity. The velocity would not be changed by observing the past.
Anyway, there was no trip into the past either by an observer or as described by the mathematics. The mathematics, as presented, describes a confused derivation that has no physical meaning. The source of the confusion is that the velocity equation is said to be reversed while dq
I remains positive. That is not possible. Direction is inherently a part of dq
I. The direction of dq
I establishes the direction of travel for each particle.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 18:32 GMT
"Whose past?" Almost a good question. Functions of time as an abstract quantity can of course be flipped, continued, or otherwise manipulated. Nature cannot be reversed, and natural processes are ultimately not truly cyclical even if some reckless mathematicians are unable to distinguish between model and reality.
Will we manage ripping apart Einstein if we accept that Tuckerman of NYU blurs this distinction by reiterating Poincaré's recurrence theorem? I see James correct in that an exchange between inputs and outputs contradicts to reality.
I looked into Einstein's "The Meaning Of Relativity" in order to localize falsifiable crucial fallacies. On p. 28 he mentions the experiments by "Michelson and Morley" (actually already Michelson in 1881 disproved Maxwell's guess) and DE Sitter's double star evidence for the constancy of c. Wasn't it premature to accept Einstein's SR as the only explanation to what was enigmatic to the physicists? I rather agree with those who consider it Much Ado About Nil.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 18:42 GMT
John,
I think that I should not add to the confusion of the example problem, but as an aside, I would give a different explanation from the representation of entropy in the following:
"There are a lot of questionable assumptions in that model, such that any system, even one in which velocities are reversed, is presumably closed and thus subject to overall entropy, so the particles...
view entire post
John,
I think that I should not add to the confusion of the example problem, but as an aside, I would give a different explanation from the representation of entropy in the following:
"There are a lot of questionable assumptions in that model, such that any system, even one in which velocities are reversed, is presumably closed and thus subject to overall entropy, so the particles are not going to follow their original trajectories back to their original starting points, ..."
I will assume that your statement has to do with disorder entropy and the inclusion of a greater than sign in an equation that mimics the form of thermodynamic entropy. That 'disorder' equation is an assumed equation and not a derived equation. In other words, there is no derived thermodynamic foundational basis for it.
I have defined thermodynamic entropy. I have shown that Boltzmann's introduction of statistical entropy is not a continuation of nor a clarification of thermodynamic entropy. Boltzmann's entropy is the point where it is assumed, without justification, that the 'S' of thermodynamic entropy is a measure of disorder. But even leaving my work aside it is the case that:
For thermodynamic entropy, disorder has not been shown to increase. Its derivation by Clausius assumed ideal conditions that specified absorption of energy at a constant temperature. That assumption is tantamount to saying that disorder was not increased. While I would not argue that disorder does not increase, it certainly does, I would argue that the equal to and greater than signs for disorder entropy are arbitrarily borrowed and not derived.
The property Clausius derived as thermodynamic entropy is not a measure of disorder. It is something that physicists still do not know. I don't say this because of my work, I say it because no physicist can presently explain the property that was derived as Clausius' thermodynamic entropy.
Returning to the quote from the link, that work is in error for reasons that exist in the math. It no doubt is necessary to explain that the error that is in the math is an error of choice of model. Otherwise I might have to explain why the negative sign in the denominator of velocity can't be moved in front of the expression for velocity. In math it is a legal operation. In the model presented, it is not a correct move to make time negative and claim, as is represented by moving the negative sign, that that makes the velocity negative.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 21:00 GMT
"Nature cannot be reversed, and natural processes are ultimately not truly cyclical even if some reckless mathematicians are unable to distinguish between model and reality."
A model is the solution to an equation or set of equations. If that's not enough "reality," then one can invent any reality one wants to believe in, with my best wishes.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 21:05 GMT
" ... Tom is not about to admit thermodynamics and spacetime are incompatible and has his hands over his ears and eyes, in order not to see or hear any evil. Given the institutional inertia behind this presumption, his sense of obligation must be overwhelming."
John, there is no one more independent in this dialogue than I, and frankly I am tired of your insults.
Thermodynamics can be formulated for both open and closed systems. If it couldn't, we wouldn't even be able to draw even an arbitrary boundary between life and non-life.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 21:09 GMT
"The past."
So that history of every particle in the universe is identical to that of every other particle?
Support your assertion.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 22:04 GMT
"So that history of every particle in the universe is identical to that of every other particle?"
Of course not. But, they did all experience now at the same time. Now all those nows are in the past. The past includes all that was put on chalkboards before now, but does not exist on a chalkboard now. What I assert is that time is now.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 22:47 GMT
Tom,
Perhaps you aren't an invented model. If you are real then you are part of nature. You cannot be shifted or flipped "in" time even if your training by reckless mathematicians might hinder your return to sane sense. Natural items like you are unique while one can look at them from a huge diversity of points of view and with mathematical equations as well as with other tools too.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 22:51 GMT
Tom,
What is being modeled and what are the equations being derived from? Do you honestly believe the language of math is more foundational than that which it is being used to describe?
I accept that I seem cavalier toward your position, but you have put up two links to support your position that thermodynamics is reversible, when both explicitly state this is not the case and that only simple models can be reversed. Now we do play back events in our minds and media all the time. It is the basis of thought, but you fail to either prove that actual thermodynamic processes can be reversed, or accept they can't. That does elict a certain degree of incredulity on my part. Most people who want to appear logical and coherent don't simply dismiss any and all inconvenient points of evidence, even ones they submit. It makes one seem disconnected from the reality others inhabit.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 22:57 GMT
Returning to my focus concerning the quote. It is that the example, as described, is of no real use. The velocity can only be reversed now. It cannot be reversed before now.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 23:11 GMT
Oh oh! What is correct? I said "before now". Is the future before now or is the past before now? :-)
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 03:04 GMT
James,
This goes to the issue of time. We experience it as a sequence of events, so we go from past events to future ones, while the events go from being in the future to being in the past. So for the observer, past is first, but for the events, future is first. Since only the mass/energy bouncing around space is real, resulting in the change that causes this passing of forms.
The question then becomes whether you see this reversal of velocity as the event itself, or as one in a sequence. The event itself is first in the future, but as a sequence, it is preceded by prior configurations. Since these other configurations are not the event in question, the reversal is in the future before it occurs, while we, the observers, only exist in the current configuration, ie. now, are in a prior configuration before the event of the reversal occurs.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 09:10 GMT
"But, they did all experience now at the same time."
That's right, James. So says relativity.
"Now all those nows are in the past."
Whose past?
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 09:13 GMT
"If you are real then you are part of nature. You cannot be shifted or flipped 'in' time ..."
What is "you"?
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 09:20 GMT
" ... you have put up two links to support your position that thermodynamics is reversible, when both explicitly state this is not the case and that only simple models can be reversed."
John, maybe I have given you too much credit for not being dense. If you understand what you are reading, you should see that action is stationary, and being stationary, has no preferred point forward or backward in time.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 09:23 GMT
"Is the future before now or is the past before now? :-)"
I think I just saw a light bulb go on.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 09:25 GMT
"This goes to the issue of time. We experience it as a sequence of events ..."
I don't. Is all your science based on your personal experience?
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 09:47 GMT
John,
I thought I had already answered in detail the difference between your personal experience of time, and how the actual physics works. Sure enough, it was in this very thread:
You miss the moral of the Emperor's Clothes fable. It isn't about the little boy -- it's about the emperor and his willing acceptance of the delusion that what he thinks he knows, that isn't...
view entire post
John,
I thought I had already answered in detail the difference between your personal experience of time, and how the actual physics works. Sure enough, it was in this very thread:
You miss the moral of the Emperor's Clothes fable. It isn't about the little boy -- it's about the emperor and his willing acceptance of the delusion that what he thinks he knows, that isn't true.
I really do wish you would get hold of Susskind's and Hrabovsky's book. I think it would open your eyes. It is well and simply written, and designed for a popular audience.
I'm not going to go into great detail about thermodynamic reversibility, because until you understand the principle of least action, it won't make sense. Briefly, though, you write:
"If you read that one short paragraph I keep posting, it states those physical processes can't be reversed, but is helpful for modeling to treat them as if they could."
This is the reason I asked you to attempt explaining thermodynamic state changes without reversibility. Until you actually try and do the work, you won't get it. If you never try and do the work, you will walk around like a naked emperor, secure in your personal ability to imagine things that aren't there. Science, though, is about objective knowledge -- the clothing that we can all agree on.
"This goes to the situation with time."
Which is reversible, in all classical models.
"We can model it like a Dali painting, if necessary, but the map is not the territory. Spacetime is a map."
Not true. You've got this idea that time is a vector independent of space that depends on your personal choice of where it goes. None of this stuff about continuous spacetime actually has anything to do directly with thermodynamic reversibility. State functions, though, do have to consider time independent of space. Consider:
"- The fact that temperature is a state function is extremely useful because with it we can measure the temperature change in the system by knowing the initial temperature and the final temperature."
I hoped, perhaps unreasonably, that you would realize that without reversibility one could not have an interval of change in which final conditions could be predicted from knowledge of initial conditions. Like I said, though, you have to do the work in order to truly understand it.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 09:51 GMT
Tom,
History is the group narrative and it is not exactly just my personal experience. Other than that, I am pointing out how this sequential effect emerges as point perspective of the essential dynamic of change of what physically exists/the now, without using some four dimensional Rube Goldberg contraption that allows wormholes, expanding universes, etc.
My reading of your links is they mostly deal with thermodynamics and how we need to be able to conceptually manipulate, ie. reverse it, but that this doesn't physically happen.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 10:00 GMT
"History is the group narrative and it is not exactly just my personal experience."
Is science identical to history? Is science a group narrative?
"My reading of your links is they mostly deal with thermodynamics and how we need to be able to conceptually manipulate, ie. reverse it, but that this doesn't physically happen."
Then your reading is deficient.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 11:08 GMT
Tom,
Do I need to post the quotes from your links again? Why don't you post the sections that show thermodynamics can go in reverse?
Spacetime has wormholes, but can't even explain why the sequence of events only goes in one direction. Think in terms of a movie projector; The frames go from being in the future to being in the past, while the projector light goes from prior frames to subsequent ones. Only in very basic configurations can this be reversed. In real life, the glass doesn't jump back up on the table and put itself together again.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 11:11 GMT
John, using the Pentcho Valev cut and paste method won't advance your understanding of physics.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 11:18 GMT
Tom,
Stating how thermodynamics goes in reverse doesn't require a bunch of invective.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 13:42 GMT
Excuse me? You're accusing me of using invective?
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 16:08 GMT
Tom,
I'm accusing you of avoiding the question.
(Explaining how thermodynamics goes in reverse.)
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 19:55 GMT
John, I told you I'm through. You're on your own, dude.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 20:49 GMT
Tom,
Thanks for the effort. We can't all conform. Trial and error thing.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 12:27 GMT
Tom,
Akinbo described an 'Earth bound' ether, which is then a background which may move with respect to others (so only
local, not 'absolute'), and equivalent to all other frames.
You only described why a single '
absolute' ether frame is untenable, which I, and I believe Akinbo, already assume to be the case. i.e. No preferred frame, but always some local reference frame for 'speed c'.
Using the local ether as the reference datum appears able to resolve all the theoretical and empirical problems. I have described a (Higgs consistent) domain boundary mechanism, and indeed the 1st order non-reliance on 'ether' per se (as we now know particles infuse space).
You've only ever expressed a subjective objection (as it's "different to" popular interpretation). Using your new entirely objective view, can you offer any proper scientific falsification of the hierarchical 'equivalent local frame' scenario?
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Oct. 18, 2013 @ 09:07 GMT
I am more optimistic than Peter that before 2020 we will get a closure on the arguments about the nature of space. My heart skipped a beat when I read this about the
Alcubierre drive.
Indeed, my model of 'digital motion' is very similar to the Alcubierre model's compression of space in direction of motion and expansion of that behind. The major difference being that not only hyperfast travel, but everyday motion involves space as a participant.
NASA is also taking a look at the
idea.
So space is not a nothing after all..., even in Einstein's theory! And as Newton suspected. It can be warped, be curved, be deformed and vibrate as in gravitational waves. Then what are we still arguing about? We are left only with the details to be sorted out.
Let me end this with Newton's statement in
De Gravitatione, p.8 "…it is clear that they (philosophers) would cheerfully allow extension (space) to be substance, just as body is, if only extension could move and act as body can". And I say, yes, extension now moves and acts as body can even in General relativity!
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 18, 2013 @ 16:10 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science V
All clever Einsteinians know that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible because the former is infected with the idiotic relativistic time, a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, whereas the latter uses the Newtonian universal time:
Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation...
view entire post
Special Relativity and Sane Science V
All clever Einsteinians know that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible because the former is infected with the idiotic relativistic time, a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, whereas the latter uses the Newtonian universal time:
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."
"Vous dites le temps c'est comme le paysage qui ne bouge pas..." ETIENNE KLEIN: "Ça c'est une conception c'est pas forcement la bonne mais c'est celle que défend Einstein." "C'est pas la vôtre?" ETIENNE KLEIN: "Heu... disons que c'est une conception qui pose des problèmes quand on compare ce que dit la relativité d'Einstein à ce que dit une autre théorie physique qui s'appelle la physique quantique..."
That is, all clever Einsteinians know that the problem has a simple solution - just getting rid of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and its absurd consequences. Yet of all clever Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a reason why the falsehood should be abandoned. 40 years of unsuccessful attempts to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics means 40 years of regular salaries for everybody. Solving the problem, that is, abandoning special relativity's insanity, would cause big trouble, as Peter Hayes explains:
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of WHY THIS HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED EARLIER. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."
And there is more than just "the embarrassing question of WHY THIS HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED EARLIER". Even if clever Einsteinians wished to abandon Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and its absurd consequences, they would be unable to do so. Buried under Einsteiniana's dung accumulated for more than a century, clever Einsteinians can only make slow movements in search for food. Any excessive activity would look like, and would have the effect of, a terrorist attack against the values of our civilization (antirelativists are sometimes explicitly compared with terrorists):
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v."
Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 19, 2013 @ 18:45 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science VI
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."
The fatal phrase, which is obviously correct, is:
"the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected"
If the Albert Einstein Institute want to save special relativity, they will have to replace the fatal phrase with an idiotic one:
"the distances between subsequent pulses are affected so that the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver gloriously remains constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"
If the fatal phrase "the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected" is not replaced with the idiotic one, then in the above scenario the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver/observer 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 the pulses relative to the receiver/observer remains different from c.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 20, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Special Relativity and Sane Science VII
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t", then the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is:
c' = ((c - Vo)t)/t = c - Vo
in violation of special relativity. The relativistic corrections do not change essentially this conclusion - c' remains different from c. If Vo is small enough, the relativistic corrections are negligible and both f'=f(1-Vo/c) and c'=c-Vo are virtually exact formulas.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 08:51 GMT
I have just read Lee Smolin's
article that Pentcho drew attention to. Very truthful, forthright and interesting. All that is needed for the 'good news' to spread is for just one powerful 'Saul to change to Paul on the road to Damascus'. Is Lee Smolin the Saul? Or is it Neil Turok? Salvation of physics, is unlikely to come from Apostles like Peter, Pentcho, John M, etc but from those who hitherto vehemently opposed the gospel. Interestingly from that Article, even the messiah (Einstein) was ostracized and his work taking over by mathematicians.
(I am not religious. Just using this for analogy).
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 11:09 GMT
Even realizing that it's a reference to tearing apart the fabric of continuous spacetime, I have always objected to the title of this article. I think it's well in evidence that Einstein has not only not been ripped apart, he has escaped without a scratch.
All the personal incredulity expressed in these blog posts amounts to nothing worth repeating. The real issue taken up by serious scientists, though, is very well summed up by Swarup: "The problem: When you try to do the math to work out the strength of forces on the quantum-gravitational scale, your calculations return a maddening proliferation of infinite answers that have no physical meaning."
While introducing the idea that time is absolute rather than relativistic may make the numbers come out the way one would like them to be -- it does not answer the important question of why the calculations returned infinity in the first place.
A physically real time independent of space is actually less well behaved than continuous spacetime -- because it assumes, as Horava points out, that Lorentz invariance also has to be discarded. Once that artifact is gone, one must do away with spacetime geometry altogether; all events are disconnected, causality is unclear and everything can be explained as "just so." That newly invented world of "just so-ness" has nothing to do with the objective world described by Einstein's mathematically complete theory.
The fabric only unravels at infinity. Locally, life -- and classical time reversible physics -- goes on. This is the physical meaning to be gotten from computations that return infinity:
All physics is local.
As the man said.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 14:28 GMT
"A physically real time independent of space is actually less well behaved than continuous spacetime -- because it assumes, as Horava points out, that Lorentz invariance also has to be discarded, ..."
t doesn't discard that which Lorentz invariance is modeling. It corrects the Lorentz transforms. Length does contract. The rate at which events occur does vary. E=mc2 still results. The equations change somewhat but they are not in error. They account for the same effects and more. E=mc2 gets a fresh presentation. That is certainly a reasonable expectation since it contains a constant speed of light.
Acknowledging that the speed of light varies does not do away with the relationship between energy and mass. The relationship between energy and mass is finally made clear physically. That result follows from finally defining mass. Mass is defined. It leads immediately to a variable speed of light. All other derived properties become defined. They all receive clear physical meanings right from the time they first appear in physics equations.
The absoluteness of time is the key to achieving, and showing, fundamental unity in all physics equations. All relativity type effects occur and are mathematically accounted for. The completeness is not lost. An absolute time coupled with a variable speed of light is not less well behaved than spacetime. The difference is only that spacetime is not needed. It couldn't be tested anyway. The existence of absolute time can be physically tested. The variability of the speed of light is already established. Maxwell gave us that answer.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 14:54 GMT
"Acknowledging that the speed of light varies does not do away with the relationship between energy and mass."
Yes it does, James. The relationship is quadratic; one cannot have c as other than constant and preserve the mass-energy identity.
If you're saying that the constant can have a different value than the speed of light in a vacuum, when measuring some constant speed less than c in a medium, that doesn't change the physics.
Understand that special relativity means E = m. This identity holds only with the absolute constant speed of light.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 1, 2013 @ 17:40 GMT
Tom,
"Understand that special relativity means E = m. This identity holds only with the absolute constant speed of light."
Before I respond, please first fill in the units for this equation.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 1, 2013 @ 18:09 GMT
Not necessary, James. The proportion is direct. It's the same as saying 1 = 1.
It means that any amount of rest energy can be converted to an equivalent amount of kinetic energy.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 1, 2013 @ 18:15 GMT
"Not necessary, James. The proportion is direct. It's the same as saying 1 = 1.
It means that any amount of rest energy can be converted to an equivalent amount of kinetic energy."
Please give the units for E = M. If the units do not exist, then it is not a physics equation. Names do not enter into physics equations. All properties are represented by their units. Do E and m have units or not?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 1, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
"Do E and m have units or not?"
Okay, then. Not.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 1, 2013 @ 18:36 GMT
""Do E and m have units or not?""
"Okay, then. Not."
So it is not a physics equation. Do you have a physics equation that shows the relationship between energy and mass?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 1, 2013 @ 18:41 GMT
"So it is not a physics equation. Do you have a physics equation that shows the relationship between energy and mass?"
Do you?
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 1, 2013 @ 19:17 GMT
""So it is not a physics equation. Do you have a physics equation that shows the relationship between energy and mass?""
"Do you?"
Of course I do. However, while I look for a way back up the side of that cliff, why don't you report the finding of theoretical physics about the relationship between mass and energy. There is no dispute about the existence of a relationship. The foundational science of physics is the place to find an equation that represents that relationship. What is the theoretical physics equation that represents the relationship between mass and energy?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 1, 2013 @ 19:26 GMT
"What is the theoretical physics equation that represents the relationship between mass and energy?"
Are you just being silly now? E = mc^2
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 1, 2013 @ 19:43 GMT
"Are you just being silly now? E = mc^2"
You know I am not. I am fixing physics. Now we have reported an equation representing the relationship between energy and mass. I see that it is not E = m. Therefore, I can discard E = m as not being a part of physics. So lets talk physics. What are the units of E = mC
2? This is not intended as a silly question. It is a necessary part of 'pulling teeth'. I am pursuing one direct answer at a time. That seems to be the path to making progress.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 1, 2013 @ 23:20 GMT
Tom,
L think that I went overboard by requesting: What are the units of E = mC2? We both know what they are:
Joules = kilograms*(meters/sec)
2That meters/sec represent the velocity of light. Light is the property that delivers empirical evidence to us. It does far more than that. It is the most important property in the universe. Its presence in the equation is of the highest importance to understand. It cannot be smudged away as is done with E = m. The appearance of E = m represents theoretical physics' acknowledgement that it cannot explain the physical basis for the equation E = mC
2. (Yes I can.)
This failing results from the theoretical act of arbitrarily making mass an indefinable property. In other words, they didn't know then what mass is and they do not know now what mass is. In order for theorist to now say they know that mass is energy, they put forward a non physics equation as E = m. The physics equation is E = mC
2 and that is the equation that both must be presented and explained. That explanation must include both what mass is and the reason why C
2 is included.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 18:44 GMT
"The appearance of E = m represents theoretical physics' acknowledgement that it cannot explain the physical basis for the equation E = mC2. (Yes I can.)"
Maybe you can, James, though it won't be different than what special relativity explains. It says in the simplest terms, that energy and mass are proportional, and the constant of proportionality is unity.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 22:24 GMT
Quoting me: "The appearance of E = m represents theoretical physics' acknowledgement that it cannot explain the physical basis for the equation E = mC2. (Yes I can.)"
Tom: "Maybe you can, James, though it won't be different than what special relativity explains. It says in the simplest terms, that energy and mass are proportional, and the constant of proportionality is unity."
It is not saying that. It can't be saying that until you include units. And, you can't add units into it because they wouldn't make sense. It cannot make a mathematical physics statement without units. It does not represent physics properties until the units of those properties are included in the equation. Physics properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. There are no units in that equation.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 23:06 GMT
"Physics properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. There are no units in that equation."
Plug in what units you wish that are mutually consistent. Voila. Instant physics.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 23:39 GMT
Tom quoting me: "Physics properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. There are no units in that equation."
Tom: "Plug in what units you wish that are mutually consistent. Voila. Instant physics."
In physics, I say, there are two rules that must be followed if we are to learn that which empirical evidence is making known to us. First: Meters and seconds are accepted as being naturally indefinable. Second: All other properties in physics equations must have units that are formed from combinations of meters and seconds. If these rules are not followed and if artificial indefinable units such as kilograms and degrees are put into physics equations, then the equations have been forced to become part of a theory. Theory is the practice of inventing substitutes to serve in place of the unknown. That which is known is empirical. That which is imagined is theoretical.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 17:05 GMT
"In physics, I say, there are two rules that must be followed if we are to learn that which empirical evidence is making known to us. First: Meters and seconds are accepted as being naturally indefinable."
You can't even get a measurement theory from that, James. Which I guess is why you think "theory" is a dirty word.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 17:24 GMT
Tom,
That is a worthy critique. I will prepare a careful response. What I think of theory is: Theory is the practice of inventing substitutes to serve in place of unknowns. I would not describe theory as a dirty word.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 17:27 GMT
"Theory is the practice of inventing substitutes to serve in place of unknowns."
So algebra is worthless, too?
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 17:37 GMT
""Theory is the practice of inventing substitutes to serve in place of unknowns.""
"So algebra is worthless, too?"
Theory has usually been a useful substitute while waiting to learn what is real.
Algebra is not worthless.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 17:45 GMT
" ... waiting to learn what is real."
That's called revelation, not science.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 18:22 GMT
Tom quoting me: " ... waiting to learn what is real."
Tom: "That's called revelation, not science."
It is called discovery and it results from pursuing empirical evidence and letting it lead our conclusions. Real is what empirical evidence is communicating to us.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 18:44 GMT
"Real is what empirical evidence is communicating to us."
So thought Aristotle. Why are we not doing physics his way?
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 19:19 GMT
Tom,
Referring to a Swarup you might mean A. Swarup. To those like me: Maddening is an old-fashioned word that means very angry. I am amused rather than annoyed: Proliferation of infinite answers means their quick increase in number. Isn't an infinite answer, let's say it polite, strictly speaking of no use? Infinite means inconclusive.
My experience with you and your credo so far lets me doubt that a discussion with you will provide anything convincing. I see Horava's arguments stronger than yours.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 20:06 GMT
Tom,
""Real is what empirical evidence is communicating to us.""
"So thought Aristotle. Why are we not doing physics his way?"
That box again? I do not fit in your box. I will be continuing returning physics equations away from their theoretical forms back into their natural empirical forms. The solutions are direct. The indirect practice of loosely explaining a property by saying it is a measure of some other property is eliminated.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 20:45 GMT
"That box again? I do not fit in your box."
Read Aristotle, and I think you will find that you do.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 22:01 GMT
""That box again? I do not fit in your box.""
"Read Aristotle, and I think you will find that you do."
Ok you understand Aristotle. Ok you describe what I do as following Aristotle. The problem with you doing that is that you do not understand my work. Youre descriptions of it are not descriptions of it. You will not even move off of first base. First base is understanding the fundamental importance of what is said in that Sears and Zemansky quote. There are three fundamental indefinable properties of physics mechanics. They are mass, length, and time. That has been true since the time of Newton and is true today for physics. Is this wrong in your opinion?
I asked you how many sources are enough?
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 11:38 GMT
" ... you do not understand my work. Youre descriptions of it are not descriptions of it."
Understand, James, that I am trying to get you to compare your work with conventional physics. It's the only way that I or anyone else will ever understand what you mean. When your results conflict with what we already know, you can't just dig in your heels and say, "You don't understand." You need a new *theory* that uses your assumptions and makes contrary predictions -- and thereby explains that what we know is only *apparently* true and not fundamental. If your results don't conflict with what we know, they are superfluous assumptions.
Einstein, noting that Kaluza and Klein had explained electromagnetic phenomena by adding a fifth dimension, allowed that adding more dimensions solves a lot of problems (even today, superstring theory, the legacy of Kaluza-Klein, is mathematically complete) -- though he added that one must also explain why reality is *apparently* only four dimensional. That, we have not yet managed to do.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 11:40 GMT
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 11:59 GMT
Eckard,
"Proliferation of infinite answers means their quick increase in number."
No it doesn't. Many functions grow quickly and approach infinity asymptotically.
"Isn't an infinite answer, let's say it polite, strictly speaking of no use?"
Strictly speaking, infinity isn't an answer. That is *very* useful information.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 14:05 GMT
"You don't understand." You need a new *theory* that uses your assumptions and makes contrary predictions -- and thereby explains that what we know is only *apparently* true and not fundamental. If your results don't conflict with what we know, they are superfluous assumptions."
If it of no benefit to you or I for you to make judgments about that which you don't understand. You don't understand because you are unfamiliar with my work. Then there is also your own contrary ideas. Our latest discussion about the physics definition of a defined and a undefined property is of great importance for you to understand. That difference isn't even from my work. It shows that there is too large a difference in how each of us views physics to even get started communicating successfully.
I have started again and I have no need to work to convince you that Sears and Zemansky correctly explained that mass is a fundamental indefinable property. Let me know sometime when you do understand that mass is not a defined property and that it is a problem for physics. Yes I have explained why it is a problem for physics. No I don't have to convince you that an undefined mass is a problem for physics. I can proceed forward without having to repeat and discuss that Sears and Zemansky quote. I have chosen to define mass and you either understand why that is important or you don't. I am not going to try to get your agreement.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 14:16 GMT
Tom,
My dictionary tells me: Proliferation of something means its quick increase in number. In your sentence ("calculations return a maddening proliferation of infinite answers") it is obvious to me that proliferation here refers to the number of answers, not to "functions grow quickly and approach infinity asymptotically".
I wrote:"Isn't an infinite answer, let's say it polite, strictly speaking of no use?" I meant that a useful answer must be complete and not a sentence that does never come to an end.
You replied: "Strictly speaking, infinity isn't an answer. That is *very* useful information." I can only guess what you meant with "infinite answers", and I would like to warn everybody about using the word infinity without due care.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 14:24 GMT
"Our latest discussion about the physics definition of a defined and a undefined property is of great importance for you to understand."
No it isn't. I understand very well that definitions are always taken in reference to other definitions. You're hanging onto a thread made of nothing but twaddle.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 14:32 GMT
"No it isn't. I understand very well that definitions are always taken in reference to other definitions."
This statement is irrelevant to what I said. "I have started again and I have no need to work to convince you that Sears and Zemansky correctly explained that mass is a fundamental indefinable property. Let me know sometime when you do understand that mass is not a defined property and that it is a problem for physics."
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 14:33 GMT
" ... a useful answer must be complete and not a sentence that does never come to an end."
That's not the case when a result returns infinity. For example, the sum of an infinite series of terms can be finite or infinite. In any case, the series has a beginning and end. Both results consitute a closed logical judgment of how the series behaves and therefore contribute useful information to a problem.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 14:38 GMT
"Let me know sometime when you do understand that mass is not a defined property and that it is a problem for physics."
Let me know when you find someone who agrees that this is a problem for physics. You won't, James. You think that a professional physicist will give you a different answer -- ask one. Ask many.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 14:48 GMT
""Let me know sometime when you do understand that mass is not a defined property and that it is a problem for physics.""
"Let me know when you find someone who agrees that this is a problem for physics. You won't, James. You think that a professional physicist will give you a different answer -- ask one. Ask many."
It is problem for physics to not know what mass is. Yes I have explained why. No I do not have to convince you in order for me to continue making my case. Any physicist is invited to respond to this statement. No I won't wait.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 15:23 GMT
"It is problem for physics to not know what mass is. Yes I have explained why."
And your explanation is that theoretical mass differs from what mass is. And you expect a theoretical physicist to agree? -- heck, James, we don't know what anything "is" apart from the theory that explains it.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 15:39 GMT
""It is problem for physics to not know what mass is. Yes I have explained why.""
"And your explanation is that theoretical mass differs from what mass is."
Your statement is irrelevant again. It doesn't matter what I say about mass. What matters is that physicists do not know what mass is and that is a problem for physics. Yes I have explained why and it does not involve my definition of mass. Repeating the statement:
It is a problem for physics to not know what mass is.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT
"It doesn't matter what I say about mass. What matters is that physicists do not know what mass is and that is a problem for physics."
Why? Theologians don't know what God is. Is that a problem for religion?
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 16:01 GMT
""It doesn't matter what I say about mass. What matters is that physicists do not know what mass is and that is a problem for physics.""
"Why? Theologians don't know what God is. Is that a problem for religion?"
Good. It is settled. You do not agree that it is a problem for physicists to not know what mass is. I say it is, and, I move forward without your agreement.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 15:35 GMT
The Essence of Special Relativity
A light source emits six pulses each second - the distance between the pulses is, accordingly, D = 50000 km. For a stationary (with respect to the source) observer the frequency and the speed of the pulses are:
f = 6 ; c = 6D
Then the observer starts moving at (1/2)c = 3D away from the source. According to special relativity, the frequency and the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer change as follows:
f' = 6 - 3 = 3 ; c' = 6D - 3D = (6 - 3)D = 6D
The calculation:
6 - 3 = 6
that Einsteinians apply to the speed of light but to nothing else in Divine Albert's world is
the essence of special relativity.
This calculation, 6-3=6, so popular in Divine Albert's world, is equivalent to the calculation 2+2=5 popular in Big Brother's world:
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 18:30 GMT
Pentcho,
Your mistake seems to be obvious here. Let's agree on
- relativity (not Einstein's questionable special conventional one) which means that we need not considering the source or the receiver at rest. Therefore we could also say the source is moving away from receiver.
- the (non-conventionally-relativistic) Doppler effect which means that the receiver measures a frequency that is decreased in the case you referred to but increased in case of decreasing distance. If one knows the actual frequency and c then one can calculate from the redshift in the referred case how fast the distance gets shorter.
- a common time and a common space, the latter without a preferred point of reference
Isn't it nonsensical to attribute reality to the apparent frequency and derive a seeming speed relative to the observer? The observer cannot see the speed but only measure the apparent frequency and calculate a belonging apparent wavelength if he knows c. All this has not yet anything to do with Einstein's conventionality which I consider at best redundant and to some extent misleading.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 4, 2013 @ 20:40 GMT
Eckard,
"Your mistake seems to be obvious here"
My mistake? I made no statement that could be right or wrong - just described with some irony the absurd relativistic thesis that, when the observer starts moving away from the light source, the frequency he measures decreases but the speed of the pulses relative to him remains unchanged. If there is an obvious mistake, it is in the words "remains unchanged".
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 06:02 GMT
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."
The wrestling was fruitful: Einstein discovered that, when the observer is moving with speed v away from a light source emitting a series of pulses (the distance between subsequent pulses is D), the frequency he measures is:
f' = c/D - v/D = (c-v)/D
and the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is:
c' = D(f') = c - v = cPentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 08:10 GMT
Pentcho,
I already tried to clarify that your mistake in this case has not yet anything to do with Einstein's "conventional" relativity. Relativity is a principle that nobody will seriously question. What Einstein called his postulate of relativity is something quite different, and I consider it as putatively natural as misleading.
Einstein's relativity demands to change the still valid most basic notions time and space for the sake of Lorentz covariance.
My argument against your reasoning is based on the valid notions time and space as well as on the Galilean principle of relativity and on the also proven Doppler effect. Again, I do not refer to Einstein's "relativity".
Let's look at your statement "when the observer starts moving away from the light source, the frequency he measures decreases but the speed of the pulses relative to him remains unchanged."
Well, the observer receives a signal with a smaller than original frequency if his distance from emitter steadily grows than in case it remains constant. This is known as Doppler effect. However, why the heck do you attribute a "speed of the pulses relative to him"? I can you tell why. You tacitly changed your perspective. In that you are in company with Him:
As Stachel wrote in the paper you repetitiously quoted:"Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense."
If we are using the good old notions time and space as I did for my lifetime this is indeed nonsensical, as nonsensical as your change of perspective.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 5, 2013 @ 16:40 GMT
Eckard,
"Well, the observer receives a signal with a smaller than original frequency if his distance from emitter steadily grows than in case it remains constant. This is known as Doppler effect. However, why the heck do you attribute a "speed of the pulses relative to him"?"
The speed of light relative to the observer is THE RELEVANT speed in relativity. Newton and Maxwell believed that this speed did depend on the speed of the observer; Einstein assumed it didn't and deduced relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, time dilation etc. FROM THIS ASSUMPTION.
I am trying to show that Newton and Maxwell were right - the speed of light relative to the observer does depend on the speed of the observer.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 16:45 GMT
The Essence of Special Relativity II
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
If in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, then, according to special relativity, the speed of the waves relative to the observer is:
c' = (c - Vo)t/t = c - Vo = c
The calculation c - Vo = c is
the essence of special relativity.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Nov. 7, 2013 @ 16:35 GMT
The Essence of Special Relativity III
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. (...) In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of 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."
"Four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means that the speed of the pulses relative to a stationary (with respect to the source) receiver is c=3D/t while the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is c'=4D/t, where D is the distance between subsequent pulses and t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses". According to special relativity, the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is:
c' = 4D/t = c + D/t = c
Needless to say, the calculation c + D/t = c is equivalent to 6 - 3 = 6,
the fundamental calculation of special relativity.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 7, 2013 @ 16:47 GMT
Pentcho,
While you wrote "the speed of the waves relative to the observer" I didn't find this in the lesson you criticized. Does it have any relevance how large we observe sun and moon?
I can only blame almost everybody including Harker and you for misusing the word relativity as if relativity was identical with Einstein's Lorentz covariance.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 7, 2013 @ 19:10 GMT
Eckard,
"While you wrote "the speed of the waves relative to the observer" I didn't find this in the lesson you criticized."
The reason is that "relative to the observer" is too trivial and universally agreed upon to be mentioned. I am constantly repeating it here because you constantly reject it, for unknown reasons.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 7, 2013 @ 23:05 GMT
The Essence of Special Relativity IV
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)."
"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO." In Divine Albert's world, this could only be true for waves other than light waves. For light waves (v is replaced by c) Einsteinians apply
the fundamental calculation of special relativity and the waves always travel at the same speed c relative to the moving observer:
c' = c + vO = c
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 7, 2013 @ 23:57 GMT
Pentcho,
Redner referred to sound when he wrote "Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed". In this case the receiver is moving relative to the medium air and Redner is correct.
You are wrong when writing "For light waves (v is replaced by c)...
You must not replace Redner's v that relates to the medium by c.
The speed of light does not at all refer to emitter or receiver but to the DIFFERENCE between the positions of ...
I don't defend Einstein. I merely criticize your unjustified criticism and your attempt to justify emission theory.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 8, 2013 @ 05:44 GMT
Eckard,
"Redner referred to sound when he wrote "Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed"."
You snipped the equation - Redner wrote:
"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO."
Redner then uses this equation, v'=v+vO, in the derivarion of the frequency shift:
"The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."
The frequency shift f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda) is valid for light isn't it? How can the wrong (according to you) equation v'=v+vO produce the correct result f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)?
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 8, 2013 @ 12:03 GMT
Pentcho,
Please distinguish relativity of position and therefore of motion too from Einstein's relativity of time. Michelson's null result showed that the speed of light does not depend on a medium, only on the relative motion between emitter and receiver.
What did Redner call vO in case the observer moves towards the source? It is the speed of the observer relative to the medium. In case of light there is no medium to refer to. The motion between observer (receiver) and source (emitter) is in this case a relative one. Therefore I defined the speed of light as DIFFERENCE between the positions ...
The receiver can directly only measure frequency but neither speed nor wavelength lambda.
May I remind you of my question concerning Pound and Rebka?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Nov. 8, 2013 @ 12:41 GMT
Eckard,
You said, "Michelson's null result showed that the speed of light does not depend on a medium, only on the relative motion between emitter and receiver". Take a look at this
article about the possible earth-bound medium.
Akinbo
(The article needs to be updated).
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 10, 2013 @ 15:26 GMT
Akinbo,
There is no preferred point in universe except for the actual now. This implies that there are only relative measures and velocities in space. I consider your "Speculations on dark matter as a luminiferous medium" merely an unnecessary variant of the hypothesis of locally fully dragged aether.
Well, Einstein's theory of "relativity" is silly. However, do not equate it with relativity in its original meaning.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 11, 2013 @ 08:48 GMT
Akinbo,
Your article mentions "Bradley's aberration .... supports advocates of light whose velocity can not be relative and which requires no medium for propagation" and "Some of the arguments can be found in [7] " Whittaker 1910. If you have the book at hand, could you please add some details? Do you refer to advocates of emission theory or to those like me who conjecture electromagnetic waves in empty space?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 8, 2013 @ 12:50 GMT
Eckard,
"What did Redner call vO in case the observer moves towards the source? It is the speed of the observer relative to the medium."
Redner wrote: "Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO."
This means that the observer moves with velocity vO RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE. And yes, if the source is at rest relative to the medium, the observer moves with velocity vO RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM as well.
Eckard, these are trivial matters - we cannot discuss them endlessly.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 8, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT
Pentcho,
As we may conclude from Michelson's null result, there is no light-carrying medium relative to which something may move. Do not ignore this endlessly.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 29, 2013 @ 12:59 GMT
Eckard,
Miller did not agree your conclusion of no background frame. You assume it as some 'light carrying medium' but I point out that a simple dielectric particle system does the same job over the distances involved.
In a 1933 paper, The Aether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth physicist Dayton C. Miller reviewed the evidence and...
view entire post
Eckard,
Miller did not agree your conclusion of no background frame. You assume it as some 'light carrying medium' but I point out that a simple dielectric particle system does the same job over the distances involved.
In a 1933 paper, The Aether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth physicist Dayton C. Miller reviewed the evidence and concluded;
"The brief series of observations was sufficient to show that the effect did not have the anticipated magnitude. However, and this fact must be emphasized,the indicated effect was not zero; the sensitivity of the apparatus was such that the conclusion, published in 1887, stated that the observed relative motion of the earth and aether did not exceed one-fourth of the Earth's orbital velocity. This is quite different from a null effect now so frequently imputed to this experiment by the writers on Relativity."
Miller showed that there is a systematic effect in the original M-M data indicating a speed of the Earth relative to the Aether of 8.8 km/s for the noon observations and 8.0 km/s for the evening observations. He believed that the aether was entrained ("dragged along") by the earth.
After years of careful experimentation, Miller indeed found a systematic deviation from the null result predicted by special relativity, which greatly embarrassed Einstein and his followers. Einstein tried to explain it away as an artifact of temperature variation, but Miller had taken great care to avoid precisely that kind of error. Miller told the Cleveland Plain Dealer on January 27, 1926,
The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature."
But the enthusiasts of the geometric interpretation suppressed all discord, and logic was lost. Misunderstanding experimental evidence will ensure it remains so.
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 29, 2013 @ 17:36 GMT
Peter,
I meant
the vacuum "is no light-carrying medium relative to which something may move". Experiments by Miller and the theory by Cahill were certainly influenced by the atmosphere of earth.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 29, 2013 @ 19:51 GMT
Eckard,
As an astronomer I can reassure you no 'perfect vacuum' exists out in space when considered at the large scales of space. It's full of particles. Maybe not the 10^14/cm^-3 near Earth, but certainly plenty enough to do the same job over a longer distance, so with gentler 'curvature'.
As an astronomer I can reassure you that there is a lot of 'longer distance' out there in the QV. There is no mystery. Each bunch of particles is in some LOCAL inertial rest frame K, and after a while all light passing through it is modulated to c in the local frame K.
That is all that's required for CSL. But when in motion K' we can't measure the 'approaching' wavelength to find speed, we measure the wavelength on
arrival of the
second wave peak. So as propagation is then at local c (c') in K' we have c' = f* lamba'. it's c and lambda that have changed ready for measurement.
Unfortunately that seems possibly to have perfect logic so is incompatible with current physics.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Dec. 1, 2013 @ 00:15 GMT
Hi Peter,
It's always good to hear the voice of reason.
Hey, I was thinking about the big bang, dark matter and the quantum vacuum. I was wondering if dark matter might offer some bosons and fermions that we don't know about? I was playing around with the idea that at a time very early in the big bang, perhaps 10^-37 seconds or less, could some kind of quantum entangled mesh have been created? I'm borrowing an idea from biology, the Endoplasmic Reticulum, which is a transport sytsem for cells. The idea is that we've never noticed it because it's made out of dark matter (invisible matter); it would have invisible fermions and bosons. I'm assuming that particles might become quantumly entangled at very high energies. At 10^-37 seconds after the big bang, the energies were incredibly high. Could some kind of quantum entanglement because a large number of dark matter particles have occured?
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 2, 2013 @ 20:06 GMT
Jason,
"It's always good to hear the voice of reason." Seems a bit scarce at times! I agree the fermion bit, but not the big bang bit, none the less the big blast will produce a whole load of fermion pairs, many of the ones that don't extinguish each other evolve to protons. I see no theoretical bar to those as dark matter.
Have you seen the Majorana fermion?
best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Dec. 4, 2013 @ 00:06 GMT
Peter,
Majorana fermion: "A Majorana fermion, also referred to as a Majorana particle, is a fermion that is its own antiparticle. They were hypothesised by Ettore Majorana in 1937. The term is sometimes used in opposition to a Dirac fermion, which describes fermions that are not their own antiparticles. No elementary fermions are known to be their own antiparticle, though the nature of the neutrino is not settled and it might be a Majorana fermion. By contrast, it is common that bosons are their own antiparticle, such as the photon."
I don't think the photon is its own anti-particle. When a particle meets its anti-particle, they're supposed to annihilate one another (perhaps giving off photons). In the case of a photon, I would argue that a photon would annihilate with its own gravity field. Of course, this doesn't happen. If it did, the whole universe would just vanish. I don't know what prevents mass-energy from recombining with its graviational curvature.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 27, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
Einsteinians and the Red Queen
Philip Ball and Lee Smolin are doing all the running they can do to get rid of the idiotic special relativistic time - a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate - and keep close to the postulate itself, to be able to worship it as ecstatically as possible:
Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only...
view entire post
Einsteinians and the Red Queen
Philip Ball and Lee Smolin are doing all the running they can do to get rid of the idiotic special relativistic time - a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate - and keep close to the postulate itself, to be able to worship it as ecstatically as possible:
Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin."
QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me. LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality. QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here? LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.
'Well, in OUR country,' said Alice, still panting a little, 'you'd generally get to somewhere else - if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.' 'A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. 'Now, HERE, you see, it takes all the running YOU can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'
It takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 11, 2013 @ 00:35 GMT
O tempora o mores:
"Could Einstein's theory of relativity be wrong? That's among the burning questions being asked by theoretical physicists today. It's a startling claim and one that has received a lot of attention from other scientists. Researchers from UC Santa Barbara's Department of Physics and the Kavli Institute for Theretical Physics (KITP) have received a $1.32 million grant from the National Science Foundation to continue their work on finding an answer."
Einsteinians know no limits.Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 12, 2013 @ 19:40 GMT
Burning Questions in Divine Albert's World
University of California, Santa Barbara: "Could Einstein's theory of relativity be wrong? That's among the burning questions being asked by theoretical physicists today."
High priests in Einsteiniana know that, as long as Einstein's 1905 postulates are believed to be both true, Einstein simply cannot be proved wrong. Whatever errors he may...
view entire post
Burning Questions in Divine Albert's World
University of California, Santa Barbara: "Could Einstein's theory of relativity be wrong? That's among the burning questions being asked by theoretical physicists today."
High priests in Einsteiniana know that, as long as Einstein's 1905 postulates are believed to be both true, Einstein simply cannot be proved wrong. Whatever errors he may have committed at later stages, they are insignificant - the groundbreaking miracles such as relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, length contraction, travel into the future etc. remain valid.
Hence the rallying cry in Einsteiniana:
"Brothers Einsteinians, "Einstein is wrong" is nice and profitable as long as you don't question the fundamental falsehood, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate!"
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."
Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me. LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality. QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here? LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 19:10 GMT
Pentcho,
Lee Smolin's space dynamics reminded me of Julian Barbour. While I didn't much agree with his price winning essay, I consider it now nonetheless more appealing to me than the essay by the last winner the name of which I unfortunately forgot.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
Space dynamics should read shape dynamics.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 16:35 GMT
Simple Refutation of Special Relativity
A stationary observer/receiver measures the frequency of the light pulses to be f=c/d, where d is the distance between subsequent pulses.An observer/receiver moving with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored) towards the light source measures the frequency of the light pulses to be f'=(c+v)/d.From the formula f=c/d one infers that the speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer/receiver is c. From the formula f'=(c+v)/d one infers that the speed of the light pulses relative to the moving observer/receiver is c'=c+v.
Einsteinians disagree.Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 27, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
Simple Refutation of Special Relativity II
As the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored), the speed of the light pulses relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v (in violation of special relativity) and, as a result, the frequency the observer measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d, where d is the...
view entire post
Simple Refutation of Special Relativity II
As the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored),
the speed of the light pulses relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v (in violation of special relativity) and, as a result, the frequency the observer measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d, where d is the distance between subsequent pulses.
As the observer starts moving away from the light source with speed v,
the speed of the light pulses relative to him shifts from c to c'=c-v (in violation of special relativity) and, as a result, the frequency the observer measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c-v)/d.
The falsehood of Einstein's relativity is obvious to everybody nowadays - there is almost
no one left on Einsteiniana's sinking ship. The only reason why the end of Einsteiniana is still not officially declared is because Einsteiniana's high priests fear an embarrassing question:
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 27, 2013 @ 16:17 GMT
Tom,
The 'Paper of 2013' says 'space-time' is meaningless beyond separate physical 'duration' and 'distance', operationally, and is almost certainly quantized ('grainy').
Further it criticises attempts to dismiss the new boundaries and constraints proposed by models such as the DFM, and agrees that the description of Lorentz Invariance; "that the speed of massless particles (i.e. the speed of light) is the same independently of the chosen reference system in which the measurement is performed" is inadequate, being; "true and false at the same time." which is again a foundation of discrete field kinetics, where c is local
Propagation speed, NOT some single
'Universal' speed!, so there are also arbitrary 'relative' speeds of 'non-local' phenomena.
You'll no doubt disagree, or perhaps search for some other 'interpretation', but, whether correct or not, it re-enforces the point I made that that your 'standard doctrine' definition of SR looks increasingly like the 'White Star' or 'Costa Line' version whose fate may be sealed.
The solution I propose steers it clear of the icebergs and rocks in it's path. There is no 'captain' on the bridge, but those at the wheel seem oblivious. It may soon be too late to save it. I can only keep ringing the warning bell. If anyone can help me get it back to navigable waters do volunteer.
And do give me your views on the highly regarded paper;
Scitech Daily article. Dec 2013. 2013 Paper of the year. Analysis of Space-Time irregularities.Best seasonal wishes.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 28, 2013 @ 09:19 GMT
Thanks Peter for providing us a link to these interesting papers. You are certainly a devoted seeker after the truth, spending much time and energy to dig things out, even if we have areas of disagreement. I will enjoy the papers and comment later. Before this...
In the preamble I see "Is space time continuous or is it made up of very fine (10
-35 meters on the “Planck scale”) but discrete grains"; "Physicists have been wondering about the nature of space time for years. We’ve been asking ourselves whether it is continuous at all scales, as we perceive it in our daily experience, or whether at very small
sizes it presents an irregular grain that we, in our direct experience, are unable to perceive", explains Liberati; "In a certain sense physicists have been trying to do something similar with space time: to find something that acts as a microscope to find out whether at very small
length scales there is indeed some irregularity.."
QUESTION OR MATTERS ARISING:
What is the measure or S.I. unit of space time? Is it in length? Or is it metre-seconds? In view of the historical intrigues that we have been subjected to in Einsteiniana, it is wise to be wary of any magic ab initio, changing a geometric entity like space, which everybody can physically appreciate and measure into something that is more of a mathematical concept before confronting the issue of its graininess or not. Let mathematicians mind mathematics, while theoretical and experimental physicists and natural philosophers mind physics. These are my opening comments, till I go through the paper. The topic appears to merit a separate blog on its own!
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 28, 2013 @ 13:46 GMT
The 2013 paper fits into the guess of grained spacetime. I nonetheless begun looking in it and found on p. 4 something that is remarkable from my perspective: replacing the abstract notions of “time” and “space” with the physical notions of
“duration” (of a physical phenomenon as measured by a clock) and distance (e.g. of
a physical object as measured by a suitable rod).
Although I don't consider Einstein a reliable authority, I would like to remind of how he defined time: what the clock measures.
Neither negative duration nor negative distance can be measured.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 29, 2013 @ 12:25 GMT
Eckard, et al.
The consequence is enlightening. You and six pals float at rest in space, detecting photons from a source 1 light year (lyr) away.
Your pal Vince then heads off towards the source at v. According to current theory (including yours Eckard) he then somehow magically changes the speed of all the 'yet to arrive' photons, whether already emitted or not but only those destined to interact with HIS lens, not yours or the others! So they then DON'T take one lyr to arrive! Or perhaps he warps the bit of space between him and the source, but only for him!? And of course he also has to contract in length. Now all those who believe that think those who think otherwise simply 'don't understand' or think the king has no clothes so are asylum inmates.
The simple option is that those photons Vince doesn't interact with carry on as they were, so at RELATIVE c+v, (but not detectable). The ones he 'detects' (an interactive 'sampling' process) are immediately modulated to c wrt his personal local rest frame ('discrete field') then measured (DFM).
Nothing else is needed. so Occam agrees with me, as does the above paper; identifying that the current description of LI is "both right and wrong," so c can be real and local, and is NOT also required to be 'apparent' elsewhere.
So I suggest it's not ME in the asylum. And when the mists clear the wall will be found encircling those who believe in the old mythical doctrines, magic, time travel, shrinking objects and invisible clothes.
This last gate is open, there may still be time to escape!
Can anyone find ANY fault or credible reason to doubt the simple DFM option?
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 30, 2013 @ 00:42 GMT
Peter,
Did you mean the following? Seven objects are located one lyr apart from an emitter. One of them, called Vince, starts moving with a velocity v wrt the group toward the source.
As usual it was not at all enlightening what you wrote. I had to learn that a pal is a friend. To me "float at rest in space" sounds self-contradicting. I guess Vince is just a name. I didn't find the expression "to head off".
Let me comment on this picture. Vince's velocity doesn't directly matter at all. If Vince's position is not yet different from the position of the group then its distance from the source is still one lyr. If Vince is e.g. only 0.5 lyr away from the source then waves from the emitter may arrive at Vince 0.5 years earlier than at the group. Incidentally, I don't see the light destined to interact. Where is the problem unless we intend understanding warped spacetime?
Vince can of course not alter the propagation of light. In that I share your "simple opinion". However I identify your addendum "As RELATIVE c+v,(but not detectable) as at least not sufficiently explained but perhaps simply unfounded and as indicating your emission-theoretic guess.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 30, 2013 @ 13:30 GMT
Eckard,
Not emission theory. And the scenario meets all observations and findings WITHOUT having to invoke influence into the future. The emitter may indeed also be moving, but was at a point in space 1 lyr away when emitting the photons/wave or whatever you prefer, which then takes 1 lyr to reach you. Lets be realistic and call it a wavefront light pulse constituted by many 'photons.'
Vince's velocity DOES of course matter because the whole problem is ALL about relative velocities. (You seem to have conveniently forgotten that fact for your own proposition).
Let us then consider that your friend Vince is the only one in motion, moving at v towards the source, but is LEVEL with you when the wavefront arrives. Now you and your 7 friends all do the calculation and find that the photons are propagating at c wrt yourselves.
But when Vince also detects the photons, and also does the calculation and finds them moving at c wrt HIM then you would call him a fool and have no logical explanation (nor does SR!)
In fact only one LOGICAL explanation can exist. It is that the photone which YOU detected were indeed doing relative c+v wrt Vince. Which means that the photons HE detected were also approaching him at relative c+v. It is then the calculation which assumes the wrong mathematical formula, because it ignores the fact that the photons we 'measure' have ALREADY interacted with our detectors, which we know from optical science to be true anyway!
The datum for defining c simply changes to the new inertial system rest frame.
I suggest that is logically irrefutable. (DFM). Happy a good new years eve.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 30, 2013 @ 22:56 GMT
Peter,
I try my best guessing what are just marginal mistakes of you, what you meant and in what you are horribly wrong.
For instance, the discrepancy between "you and your 7 friends" and "You and six pals" is marginal.
I guess when you wrote "Vince ... is LEVEL with you when the wavefront arrives" you meant he is at the same position when the photons arrive at Vince, me, and the remaining five friends. Being no Englishman I would more easily understand "at the same level as you" but "LEVEL with you does perhaps mean the same.
You then wrote: "all do the calculation and find that the photons are propagating at c wrt yourselves." I suspect, you are unable to specify what calculation you are referring to and on what it could be based.
Then you are reasoning: Vince has to add his own speed v to the speed c of the photons. I consider this appealing to laymen but belonging to the model of bullets instead of waves, in other words to emission theory.
I am sorry, there is perhaps no EE who will support this experimentally and theoretically refuted view.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 31, 2013 @ 14:26 GMT
Eckard,
Are you suggesting that humans have the metaphysical power to affect light signals that haven't arrived? So the speed of Vince wrt the photons arriving at YOU is not relative c+v!? If so it would seem that 'denial' is as powerful outside mainstream as it is within it. It doesn't require bullets or ballistic/emission theory, but it does require simple logic. That's what seems to be missing in current science.
The very simple 'Occam' scenario I've painted for you resolves all the questions that need to be resolved, which then means it's the best candidate. You have identified not fault, but are engrossed in your far more complex and illogical solution. If you CAN falsify it please do so. But if the approach you've taken is typical of all science then it seems the simple truth may remain subjugated forever. However I can't believe that all EE's would show the same apparently selective distain for simple electrodynamics and logic. If a signal propagates from A to B in time t it has as assignable 'speed' dt. Your idea has to invokes time travel to do so!
If you have seven friends at rest relatively but one then moves, I'm not a mathematics professor but my calculator tells me there may be 6 left. Perhaps your continual focus on such entirely unimportant distractions is what's causing the blindness. Are you actually serious about science? Do you not think physics is about the physical? and do you believe in logic?
Happy new year
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 04:50 GMT
Peter,
Your main mistake is common among opponents of SR and CSL like Pentcho who are considering photons moving in a ballistic manner like bullets.
A colleague of mine taught physics to students across our university. He told me that students of EE tend to easily accept SR because we teachers of EEs had already taught them to calculate light behaving as an em wave, not as a body that can be accelerated.
The speed c of any wave does neither immediately depend on a velocity v_e of its emitter nor on a speed v_r of its receiver but it refers to the medium. The expression c+v is therefore misleading. Waves cannot propagate faster wrt medium than with the specific speed c. This is valid for acoustic waves in air as well as for em waves in space. While you may calculate the value c+v when considering (in particular from the perspective of ground) the sound propagating within a fast flying cabin, you must not infer that a signal can be transferred with a speed in excess of c. Please accept this without further quarrel.
Michelson’s null result has been the next hurdle of understanding since 1881: We have also to accept that in empty space there is no stationary light-carrying medium wrt which an object could move at a velocity v_m. An application of the expression c+v_m is therefore not justified. You are repeatedly claiming that a photon/wave is emitted with a speed v wrt the emitting body. I don’t see this correct.
The speed of light belongs to its far field component. The near field component does not propagate, and in empty space this speed (as I pinpointed the perhaps only reasonable definition of it) is c, depending not on the speeds of the emitting as well as the receiving body but on their belonging positions instead.
I only mentioned your trifles because they may make reading of what you wrote more troublesome, in particular for those like me.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 15:01 GMT
I fully agree with Peter,
a photon that is approaching you is still invisible, so not measurable....
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 16:34 GMT
Wilhemus,
"a photon that is approaching you is still invisible, so not measurable....".
Well, the future cannot be observed in advance. There is no negative elapsed time as there is also no negative distance.
However, in what do you agree with Peter and why?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 17:17 GMT
Eckard,
Poor understanding is rife. I'll try to explain better. 1. I agree "Waves cannot propagate faster wrt medium than with the specific speed c."
Also that; "The speed of light belongs to its far field component." So only in the NEAR field is c wrt the emitter. I do NOT therefore invoke ballistics. Quite the opposite, I use waves. Read my essays!
But there is a very new and very subtle point here; ALL matter, including detectors, have 'near fields', (at rest with the body). So the speed of approaching light is always c in the FAR field. But it is c in ALL fields. So when it arrives it changes to c in the near filed (just like sound).
You keep insisting space has no 'medium'. If you had the first idea about astronomy or astrophysics you'd know how hopelessly wrong that assumption is. I'm not referring to 'ether', only to the diffuse mass particles we ACTUALLY FIND there! Being diffuse only means that refraction takes longer and further. But space is obviously far bigger than you've imagined Eckard, vastly bigger than is needed for the job!
Take all the particles of a 1cm thick lens and scatter them in space. Do you imagine they won't do the same job? That job is precisely what they DO do. And coupling affects speed just as much as angle, even where n=1. Think carefully about that. That is what Willhelmus meant.
So all light in passing planes can do c+v wrt you, but always
propagates at c, so can NEVER reach you at c+v as it always changes speed when changing field (thus discrete fields) to propagate at local c.
No need to apologise for wrongly accusing me of making the mistake of using 'bullets'. Poor understanding is rife.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 05:52 GMT
OMG: "The falsehood of Einstein's relativity is obvious to everybody nowadays - there is almost no one left on Einsteiniana's sinking ship."
Silly me, I thought only QM has its share of "challengers" because QM is much harder compared with special relativity.
Still, the argument has sheer brilliance in its simplicity:
"An observer/receiver moving with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored) towards the light source measures the frequency of the light pulses to be f'=(c+v)/d.
From the formula f=c/d one infers that the speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer/receiver is c. From the formula f'=(c+v)/d one infers that the speed of the light pulses relative to the moving observer/receiver is c'=c+v."
I am completely speechless on this one.
post approved
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 18:05 GMT
Florin,
An easy mistake to make. A far more subtle truth hides from all simplistic analysis, agreeing with Einstein's final 1952 definition (and Postulates) which varied somewhat from the earlier descriptions.
The 'discrete field' model describes an underlying (quantum scale) mechanism which can
produce the effects described in SR (and thus GR). Firstly v can be large as the...
view entire post
Florin,
An easy mistake to make. A far more subtle truth hides from all simplistic analysis, agreeing with Einstein's final 1952 definition (and Postulates) which varied somewhat from the earlier descriptions.
The 'discrete field' model describes an underlying (quantum scale) mechanism which can
produce the effects described in SR (and thus GR). Firstly v can be large as the Lorentz Factor is a valid approximation of the power curve implicit in the model approaching gamma (link available).
Now if you read my latest essay
2nd place score, here; you'll see the reason why using "frequency" rather than the scalar "wavelength" (L) has tended to 'screen' what's really going on. i.e. In astronomy we've learnt that using the 'frequency' formulations for Doppler shift produces anomalous results. Telemetry and redshift then use L/L. The difference is critical, but theorists still habitually use f.
The reason is as identified in the nominated 'Paper of the Year' and analysis that the simple specification of CSL is "both true and false at the same time" as it needs more precise definition, here;
Liberati 2013. and
Analysis of Space-Time irregularities.Jnl Stat.Phys.2013.It also complies with QED, But of course as Feynman predicted the solution would be, it's entirely unfamiliar so will certainly "first look wrong", as it did to me. it's then liable to unscientific 'a priori' rejection. Human nature really. It has however not only passed all falsification but seems to resolve all the anomalies it's been used on (see the essays). I estimated it may be ~2020 before physicist would be ready (2010 Essay; 2020 Vision').
It also precisely recovers the hierarchical structure of truth function logic ('proposition' = 'inertial system') and (finally!) recovers Snell's Law of refraction at Maxwell's near/far field transitions. If you get your head round the dynamical evolution let me know. Fundamentally All propagation is at c, but 'apparent' c+v does not require disqualification as all 'matter' can move'. Superluminal jets (found up to 46c apparent) are then no longer a problem for Relativity.
Happy New year
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 18:15 GMT
Florin, I can't determine if you are being facetious or if you really are that innocent of relativity.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 18:47 GMT
Florin,
The problem is that you, like the vast majority of people, have confused "group velocity" for "phase velocity". Einstein simply DEFINED the phase velocity of light, in a vacuum, to be a constant. He said nothing about group velocity being constant.
Group velocity is the velocity at which the envelope of a signal propagates, such as might be measured by timing the arrival of a leading edge of a pulse.
Phase velocity, on the other hand, is the velocity of a signal with a constant envelop - in other words, an infinitely long signal that has no leading or trailing edge. Since the envelop is constant, no measurement of it will provide any indication of a non-zero velocity, whatsoever.
So how do you then DIRECTLY measure the velocity of an infinitely long, ideal sinusoid, that never interacts with anything, (because it is in a vacuum)? The answer is that you can't. You can only measure a changing phase. But that could be caused by EITHER a non-zero velocity, or a change in its frequency, or any combination of the two. So which is it? There is no way to tell. Not even in principle. So just pick one or the other as being CONSTANT, and attribute the phase shift has being entirely caused by the other.
Einstein simply observed that the math transformation would be simpler, if you picked the velocity to be constant, rather than the frequency. Hence, we have Doppler frequency shifts and constant phase velocity, rather than constant frequency and Doppler velocity shifts.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 09:23 GMT
Poor Einstein, you are not a saint but why do they keep telling lies against you? Some say they love you but refuse to heed your statements. Others hate you and refuse to listen to any of your defense. Did you not say this -
"… according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions...
view entire post
Poor Einstein, you are not a saint but why do they keep telling lies against you? Some say they love you but refuse to heed your statements. Others hate you and refuse to listen to any of your defense. Did you not say this -
"… according to the general theory of relativity, 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... ONLY SO LONG as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields (OF THE EARTH) on the phenomena {e.g. of light}",
p.89. Yet they lie you said constancy of light velocity MUST have unlimited validity!
And this
"Furthermore, we can regard an atom (e.g. Caesium 133) which is emitting spectral lines as a clock, so that the following statement will hold: An atom 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 an atom situated on the surface of a heavenly body (e.g. EARTH) will be somewhat less than the frequency of an atom of the same, element which is situated in free space (or on the surface of a smaller celestial body)",
p.157. Yet
BIPM insist on using Caesium 133 frequency on earth to determine 'the second' and force light velocity to be constant at EXACTLY 299792458m/s universally, when in free space it will be 2999792458.2087m/s.
And this
"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity...the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the location...",
p.903. Still they would not listen. What else can you do?
Please don't turn in your grave. I beg you to forgive Pentcho, Tom, Florin and Robert. May your precious soul continue to rest in peace. Amen!
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 13:20 GMT
Akinbo,
Consider Rob's point very carefully, you should find it correct. Certainly I agree most are highly culpable and asymmetrically cherry pick Einstein's views to maintain their rigid beliefs.
Rob,
I do like that way of describing it, but some time ago I found a 'limitation' to the domain of a (simplest) model of the phase/group approach, which I recall related to observer frame dependence. It didn't then provide the complete 'solution set' alone. I believe it can be overcome by taking the LOCAL background view, but that then itself needed to be demonstrated anyway. Can your incisively logical mind find a better way?
Happy new year.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 14:57 GMT
Akino:
You stated that "the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the location". But if there is a gravitational field, then there is no inertial (un-accelerating) frame. Consequently, Special Relativity does not apply, General Relativity is required.
Peter,
Recall that Einstein POSTULATED the speed of light to be constant. He did not OBSERVE it to be constant. He did not PREDICT it to be constant. While there a variety of definitions for POSTUlATE, the basic idea is to take something as an unquestioned given, and then use it as a starting point, for deducing some interesting conclusion.
What was the conclusion that he was aiming at? A simple conversion system.
Special Relativity is nothing more than a "Currency Exchange"; I say this can of soup costs 1.23 dollars and you say it costs 0.68 pounds. So which is it, 1.23 or 0.68? The answer is both. You just need to convert numbers in one measurement system to numbers in different systems.
Special Relativity is nothing more than the "Measurement Exchange" system used to convert measurements in one inertial system into measurements in another.
Maxwell observed that certain constants in his equations for Electrodynamics can be combined to yield the "speed of light". Maxwell's equation are formulated in the rest frame of the observer. Wouldn't it be nice if observers in relative motion could ALL use Maxwell's equations in there own personal rest frame, in which his equations yield a constant speed of light? So, given the ambiguity in phase, noted in my previous post, why not just go ahead and POSTULATE that the speed is constant and the same for everyone, and see if that leads to an interesting conclusion, a simple "Measurement Exchange" system? It did. End of story.
But not quite. Even in real currency exchange systems, there can be subtle but significant effects. The whole field of arbitrage is based upon exploiting such effects.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 15:10 GMT
No, no, no Rob, while I am ready to consider your thoughts carefully as Peter J says I should, you need to check out those quotes carefully because I provided links to them to show they are not fabricated. So when you make a statement like, "But if there is a gravitational field, then there is no inertial (un-accelerating) frame. Consequently, Special Relativity does not apply, General Relativity is required", I don't understand. Firstly, where then does Special relativity apply? Not on Earth? Was it not Earth-based experiments that gave birth to it? Does the Earth not have a gravitational field? Can the Earth not be regarded as an inertial frame, despite having a gravitational field? We have to be careful in some of our statements so Einstein will not wake up one day to torment the living.
Akinbo
*Peter J, I will study more on this group vs. phase velocity thing. I hope it is not another mathematical magic.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 16:01 GMT
Yes, yes, yes Okinbo.
I do not dispute your quotes. As you correctly observed, it is your misunderstanding of those quotes that is at issue. For Einstein, in Special Relativity, a "vacuum" has no gravitational field. Recall that Einstein was the person that first predicted that light would interact with a gravitational field; he famously predicted that during a total eclipse of the sun, light would be deflected as a result of this interaction. In Special Relativity, "Vacuum" means "nothing for light to interact with". Consequently, it means no Gravitational field.
You asked "Was it not Earth-based experiments that gave birth to it?" No. Never. It was purely conceived as a "thought" experiment. It (the constant speed of light) is POSTULATED, not Experimentally Observed nor Theoretically Predicted. Of course, it was Maxwell's Theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment then lead Einstein to these Postulates. Recall that, at the time of the latter, it was supposed that light propagated by INTERACTING with the Aether. But that experiment demonstrated that there was no Aether. So this lead to the question: How does light behave, in the absence of any interaction with anything? Special Relativity is Einstein's answer to that question.
Special Relativity, like Newton's theory of gravity, can obviously be used on earth. But only as an approximation. In most circumstances, they are very good approximations, but if you what maximum accuracy, as in GPS location systems, then General Relativity is required.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 18:20 GMT
Rob, Akinbo,
You're both right but trivially incomplete. Rob you ignore all from Romer to binaries in dismissing an empirical basis for postulating CSL, but no matter. You also distracted from the key point by apparently dismissing not just 'generalising' SR in gravity.
Akinbo you allowed Robs overstatement to distract you, Rob's central analysis is correct and just another way of describing discrete field dynamics. What the DF Model does is complete the ontology with the quantum mechanisms implementing the postulates and the LT, ergo 'curved space time'.
SR, GR and QM are like 3 complex 3D dynamic jigsaw puzzle pieces with dried mud on them. When they fit together, as the DFM and in line with Rob's description, SR 'becomes' GR, and both are implemented by logical quantum mechanisms (QM).
Speed is only a relative concept. c is then relative locally to ALL matter, which moves relative to other matter. The secrets were then only the mechanism for c to change (which also explains GR as plasma 'vortices' have G-potential) and for the non-linear asymptotic Limit represented by the Lorentz Factor. Those were the final pieces that made it all fit and work, exposing the great and simple beauty of nature. (I posted the LT link to Florin).
Rob. Shockingly Maxwell's equations need some massaging to rid them of anomalous virtual electrons, 'partial time derivatives' and Fraunhofer refraction, and to recover Snell's law or refraction. Are you up for discussing it and manipulating a few symbols? Do you recall my references to the (orig 1950's) 'two-fluid' plasma dynamics, surface plasmoids etc?
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 18:25 GMT
Very nice, Rob. If only the relativity deniers would appreciate it.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 19:52 GMT
Rob,
Did Einstein really define "the phase velocity of light, in a vacuum, to be a constant"? In his 1905 SR paper he used Poincaré synchronization and two-way speed of light.
I came across of the phase/group velocity matter when Nimtz claimed having measured transmission of light with a speed in excess of c.
Today I found "The Great Einstein/de Broglie Velocity Equation derivation and notes by Douglass A. White" and an argumentation that questioned the correctness of Michelson's null result as measuring phase.
My own argument is perhaps the only one that is consistent with Michelson 1881/83 and Michelson/Pale 1925.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 00:36 GMT
Eckard:
You asked: "Did Einstein really define "the phase velocity of light, in a vacuum, to be a constant?"
Yes. Here is a quote from (in translation) the 2nd paragraph of Einstein's 1905 "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies":
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
Note that in "empty space", the phase velocity and group velocity are equal, so, in this special case, it is not important to distinguish between the two.
See the wikipedia entry for "Dispersion (optics)", for more info regarding phase/group velocity
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 01:35 GMT
Peter,
I prefer not to rewrite history. For me, the issue is not what I ignore or dismiss, more than 100 years after Einstein wrote his 1905 paper on SR. I don't believe gravity was even mentioned in that paper. As for the experimental observations, I'm sure Einstein would not have made his postulate, if they showed the speed of light to be obviously variable. But in the paper, in the first paragraph he cites problems with Maxwell's equations, and in the second paragraph, he cites "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium"" as his primary considerations.
"Shockingly Maxwell's equations need some massaging to rid them of anomalous..."
Einstein also noted anomalies... Einstein's 1st sentence in the 1905 paper: "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics-as usually understood at the present time-when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena."
"Are you up for discussing it and manipulating a few symbols?" Perhaps. But to what end?
"Do you recall my references to the (orig 1950's) 'two-fluid' plasma dynamics, surface plasmoids etc?" No.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 10:02 GMT
Rob,
I misspelled Gale 1925.
You wrote to Florin: "The problem is that you, like the vast majority of people, have confused "group velocity" for "phase velocity". Einstein simply DEFINED the phase velocity of light, in a vacuum, to be a constant. He said nothing about group velocity being constant."
When did Einstein speak of phase velocity?
The velocity he referred to in 1905 has now been called front velocity.
The mistake of Nimtz is a frequent one. He measured a phase velocity in excess of c and then he questioned the meaning of c as the maximal possible speed for transmission of signals.
Shouldn't you reconsider your argumentation?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 11:42 GMT
Rob,
Nice to learn that in the absence of matter, phase velocity will equal group velocity.
You say, "Special Relativity, like Newton's theory of gravity, can obviously be used on earth.
But only as an approximation. In most circumstances, they are very good approximations, but if you what maximum accuracy, as in GPS location systems, then General Relativity is required".
Since you know G, M and r for Earth, I want maximum accuracy, give it to me please!
Special relativity is being used to define the constancy and the value of that constant, would you then agree given your statement that the use of words like "exactly" in such definitions is wrong but rather "approximately" and "good approximation" should be preferred? Take note that all experiments that claim that Special relativity has passed ALL tests are conducted on earth vacuum and gravitational field and they don't lay claim to any "approximate validity" in their results. Finally, since you say I may be misunderstanding what I quoted Einstein to have said, what is your own understanding of: "
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... ONLY SO LONG as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields (OF THE EARTH) on the phenomena {e.g. of light}" (Capitals are mine).
From the quote and your understanding, I take you to mean that the law of the constancy of light in vacuo is invalid under (very strong) gravitational influence? And valid only where there is no gravitational field?
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 12:43 GMT
Eckard,
Front velocity refers to the leading-edge of a signal. There is no leading edge on an infinitely long sinusoid.
Einstein's 1905 paper is dealing with a mathematically idealized case, not messy reality. In reality, there is no such thing as "empty space", and no such thing as a single frequency (hence infinitely long, since any finite "truncated" signal has a spectrum). Nevertheless, it is just such an idealized case that Einstein was writing about. Give the guy a break. He turned out an amazing amount of good work that year. Why complain that he didn't deal with EVERY problem then?
You asked "Shouldn't you reconsider your argumentation?" It is not my argument. It is Einstein's. If you believe in an afterlife, then, when you arrive there, you my query Einstein about his choice, just as Odysseus queried Achilles about his, in Homer's tale.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 13:12 GMT
"There is no leading edge on an infinitely long sinusoid."
Rob, I know what a strain it is to try and bring anti-relativists to an understanding of continuous functions.
Good luck.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 13:13 GMT
Akinbo,
You stated that "Since you know G, M and r for Earth, I want maximum accuracy, give it to me please!"
Unfortunately, I do not know the number of free electrons encountered by any signal along its path. Since the travel-time of the signal depends upon this number, neither I nor anyone else can be absolutely accurate. I know, from personal experience, that that number can change dramatically in time-scales less than 0.001 seconds, for signals traveling through the Earth's ionosphere. This is a major source of error, in attempting to geo-locate signals via their measured travel-times, especially at low frequencies.
You stated that "Special relativity is being used to define the constancy and the value of that constant"
Special relativity only defined the former, not the latter.
You stated "I take you to mean that the law of the constancy of light in vacuo is invalid under (very strong) gravitational influence? And valid only where there is no gravitational field?"
"Invalid" is too strong a word. As you increase the content of (formerly) "empty space", by adding gravitational fields, free electrons, or anything else that light may interact with, then the speed of light traversing that space will increasingly deviate from its speed in "vacuum".
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 13:29 GMT
"You (Akinbo) stated that Special relativity is being used to define the constancy and the value of that constant'
"Special relativity only defined the former, not the latter."
Exactly right. It seems the hardest thing to convince an anti-relativist that the constant of proportionality between energy and mass is exactly 1. They think the empirical value of the speed of light has meaning. It does not.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 13:40 GMT
Professor
David Lerner has a nice facility for explaining the fundamentals.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 13:55 GMT
Eckard,
You suggested your 'idea' is consistent with the 1925 Michelson Gale Pearson finding. MGP concluded that there is a light carrying medium, reporting; 'fringe shifts due to ether flow with respect to the Earth's rotation' in an Earth centred (orbiting) aether at rest (i.e. the ionospheric frame). This was also consistent with Millers independent findings of increasing ('birefringent') effect with altitude. Such subtleties are normally missed or ignored as they appear difficult to reconcile with SR.
What is however certain is that your thesis is not consistent with this finding any more than it is with the simplistic 'standard' interpretation or SR. The finding is however entirely consistent with Rob's. It seems then it may not be Rob who needs to reconsider his 'argumentation'.
Are you familiar with J.D Jackson and varying 'extinction distances' with density?
Akinbo;
Considering extinction may also be helpful to you to better understand my descriptions and Robs point on approximation due to plasma density.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 14:49 GMT
Rob,
"Perhaps. But to what end?" Explaining the 'asymmetry' to advance understanding.
A whole tranche of anomalies and paradoxes may be resolved by more precisely matching the mathematical description to the underlying physical 'mechanism' of Maxwell's near / far field transition (which includes deriving the 'LT' non-linearity). The SR postulates re-emerge with a more complete specification and explanation.
A bit like the currency conversion; The maths may be perfectly precise but give little clue as to the physical mechanisms required to actually implement a transfer from pounds to dollars. The physical reality will also always be an approximation of the mathematics to ~0.5 cents.
I stated some of the anomalies which would be lifted. Non-linear optics is beset with them, but most are unfamiliar as they're 'swept under the carpet'. The violation of Snell's Law at 'kinetic reverse' refraction is just one, recovered by the mechanism. I can provide a full mechanistic description of processes, some of which you already understand, but manipulating the representative symbols isn't my game. Contact me on peter.jackson53(at)ymail.com to have a closer look. I'm also joint author on a paper on superluminal quasar jet acceleration and collimation mechanisms you may be interested in (presently in review).
Two-fluid plasmas are very interesting mechanisms, relating to increased photo-ionization rates with intensity, so 'Higgs process' pair production rate linked with relative motion, also closely related to the phase/group matter.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 14:57 GMT
Rob, Tom,
"There is no leading edge on an infinitely long sinusoid." Well, for this reason I consider R+ and cosine transformation more appropriate than the use of R and Fourier transformation in combination with Heaviside's trick. The leading edge is the now, the point zero of elapsed time.
Ripping apart Einstein in this respect seems to me more important than revealing in what your argumentation (and also Peter's still untenable idea of nested local velocities) were inconsistent.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 15:41 GMT
Okay Rob, let me digest your reply.
Since you prefer not to rewrite history... I said "Was it not Earth-based experiments that gave birth to SR?", And you reply, "No. Never". The experiment took place in 1887, and SR was born in 1905.
But you redeem yourself when you say, "Of course, it was Maxwell's Theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment then lead Einstein to these Postulates".
Happy weekend.
Happy weekend to you too Tom. I know you are a Die Hard supporter of Einstein but you deny him on many occasions. And as for "they think the empirical value of the speed of light has meaning. It does not". Don't say this in Einsteiniana. You may be excommunicated. BIPM define a metre and a second with that same value which you say has no meaning.
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 17:14 GMT
"BIPM define a metre and a second with that same value which you say has no meaning."
No they don't. A universal metre length is defined as a rest mass maintained under constantly controlled conditions; a universal second is defined as a certain number of oscillations of an atom maintained under constantly controlled conditions.
This has nothing to do with the uncontrolled conditions of nature in situ. These conventions are no different in principle than defining a yard as the distance from the king's nose to the tip of his middle finger.
The *meaning* of special relativity is E = m; i.e., the constant of proportionality is 1. The constant c is allows calculation of proportions of energy to mass less than 100% energy, which remains as rest mass potential.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 19:53 GMT
Eckard,
You used "untenable" inappropriately. It's proper definition is; "incapable of being maintained, defended, or vindicated" which does not apply to the well proven hierarchical structure of Truth Functional Logic used for 'nested' local backgrounds ('Proposition' = 'System'), or any empirical evidence cited ('disagreement' is not 'falsification'). I'd suggest perhaps more precise words are; 'unappealing' (subjective) or; 'undesirable' (to anybody with contrary beliefs or who dismisses logic).
Tom,
It seems you forgot the other 'm'. Either rest mass or inertial mass must be used whichever is most convenient, so for proportionality to be 'consistent'; E = m_r = m_i = 1, where m_r varies from m_i when not at rest. Otherwise m – E/c^2 would be false.
Did you see and comment in the 'paper of the year' I posted above explaining that the description;
"that the speed of massless particles (i.e. the speed of light) is the same independently of the chosen reference system in which the measurement is performed....is true and false at the same time."
In case not it's here;
Stefano Liberati 2013. Your views?
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 20:55 GMT
Peter,
In regards to:
"A whole tranche of anomalies and paradoxes may be resolved by more precisely matching the mathematical description to the underlying physical 'mechanism' of Maxwell's near / far field transition (which includes deriving the 'LT' non-linearity). The SR postulates re-emerge with a more complete specification and explanation."
I do not think that any...
view entire post
Peter,
In regards to:
"A whole tranche of anomalies and paradoxes may be resolved by more precisely matching the mathematical description to the underlying physical 'mechanism' of Maxwell's near / far field transition (which includes deriving the 'LT' non-linearity). The SR postulates re-emerge with a more complete specification and explanation."
I do not think that any "fundamental" mathematical description of such anomalies is possible. As described in my 2012 FQXI essay, concise sets of equations are almost devoid of information. Consequently, they can never describe phenomenon that are not similarly devoid of information.
Maxwell's equations for electrodynamics, the equations of hydrodynamics, thermodynamics etc, are all secondary, rather than fundamental laws; they describe statistical behaviors of large sets of "initial conditions", too large to deal with individually at a more fundamental level. In other words, they are an amalgam of the information content of more fundamental laws, together with gross characterizations of the information content of the myriad, specific initial conditions.
For example,
I am in orbit around the sun. But Einstein's equations are never going to describe my exact orbit, to the same precision it can describe the orbit of the earth's center of mass.
The motions of waves on the surface of the ocean can be described by the equations of hydrodynamics. But near the shore, where wave height becomes comparable to water depth, non-linearities set in and the equations are no longer accurate. But this is not a failure of any fundamental law; no attempt was ever made to track the motion of each and every water molecule, much less all the atoms making up those molecules.
And when a high intensity sound wave drastically heats the air as it passes through it, and thereby changes it's propagation characteristics, again, it is not the failing of any fundamental principle, anymore than a baseball, encountering air-resistance, and thus not following a Newton's law derived parabolic path, represents a failure of Newton's law.
In all these cases, a "short-cut" was taken, to avoid the obstacles of having to deal with high-infomation-content initial-conditions. But it is not the fault of the fundamental laws, that a such a short-cut was attempted and then went astray.
Einstein said that light, traveling down an empty highway, can go at cruise-control at a constant speed. He never said it could do the same during rush-hour, with roads packed with free-electron pot-holes and deep gravitational mud covering the surface.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 22:33 GMT
Robert McEachern,
Greetings, I thought you comments on SR easily intelligible, thank-you.
In keeping with your criteria that many equations (Theorems) are secondary to fundamental laws, what about Planck's Theorem? Does the Planck Constant as stated in erg sec. mean it must always be associated with the phase velocity of any ascribed wavelength, or can it be used properly as the energy value alone as the content of that wave? If the sec. parameter is dropped, is the Quantum 6.626196 x 10^-27erg? And is that energy quantity fundamentally discrete, or continuously divisible as a constituent of a coupled charge, the proportions of which are dependent on wavelength? Your thoughts would be welcomed.
Also, anybody, is there an agreed upon value in gram measure for the Planck Mass (mP) and a link would be nice? Thanks- jrc
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 10:10 GMT
Peter,
Florin confessed being "completely speechless on" OMG. I wonder what OMG stands for, and why did Florin not distinguish between d in case of constant didtance and d in case of changing distance.
What about my judgment that your main idea is untenable, I would like to distinguish between my suspicion that you seem to prefer wording the problem vaguely enough so that no one can figure out what your talking about and my argument that the constant speed of light in vacuum must not be explained by postulating local extinction and subsequent reemission.
I guess that reddening of light by interstellar absorption and scattering is certainly important and should not be prematurely substituted by the BB hype.
However, already Michelson's 1881 experiment gave rise to question the ether wind hypothesis, and MGP 1925 implies that we must not infer that there is no absolute space and no absolute time. Instead we have to consider that there is no a priori preferred point of reference in space if we assume space a limitless scenario of distances like an ideal sheet of white paper, while the rotation in case of MGP defines such reference point.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 10:21 GMT
Nice analogy Rob,
Makes me understand Relativity better. The more the gravitational mud, the lower speed of light. Less mud, slightly higher speed. Our Earth is certainly not the muddiest nor the least muddy place in the Universe. In our slightly muddy gravitational environment we measure light transit time over one metre as 1/299792458 seconds. Thank you sir!
I can see clearly now the rain is gone (with lyrics)/ I can see all obstacles in my way... More later.
Tom,
Thanks for the David Lerner lecture link. The ongoing battle is between Galilean and Lorentzian transformation. We are on opposite sides of the battle line but I believe we are all soldiers fighting for the truth.
Peter,
I have read the paper by Stefano Liberati . More of a review meant to maintain the status. The paper contains a reference to a paper by Brendan Foster who anchored the last contest which I also intend to see. I have made a few notes and if I think it furthers the cause I will post them. I am not yet familiar with extinction but will familiarize myself with it. But what does it change in the battle between Galilean and Lorentz transformation? I doubt little.
Eckard,
Waiting for your expert advice before commencing my trip into space (testing reality in space blog). I don't feel safe enough with Tom's advice.
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 17:32 GMT
John,
Equations and theorems are not one and the same thing. I am not quite sure what you are referring to by "Planck's Theorem"; there is Planck's Law, Planck's Relation and Planck's Constant. Planck's law describes the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a MACROSCOPIC black body in thermal equilibrium at a definite temperature. Since it is concerned with a MACROSCOPIC entity (an amalgam,...
view entire post
John,
Equations and theorems are not one and the same thing. I am not quite sure what you are referring to by "Planck's Theorem"; there is Planck's Law, Planck's Relation and Planck's Constant. Planck's law describes the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a MACROSCOPIC black body in thermal equilibrium at a definite temperature. Since it is concerned with a MACROSCOPIC entity (an amalgam, as noted in my previous post), it is not dealing with the fundamentals.
I think you are referring to Planck's Relation: E = hv. As long as you restrict the application of this relation to individual photons, it does appear to be fundamental, since photons seem to be fundamental. But, as was originally the case, if you apply it to a river of photons (a wave), then it is another amalgamation of fundamental behaviors and "emergent" statistical behaviors, like the schooling of fish, that seeks to produce concise descriptions at the expense of lost information; a lossy compression algorithm.
Contrary to popular quantum mythology, waves are not fundamental; they are emergent manifestations of amalgamations of large numbers of more fundamental entities.
Consider an analogy between the flow of a river down a valley and the flow of electrons through the famous double-slit apparatus. Rivers are amalgamations of rain-drops. The so-called "source" of the river, is the point furthest from the mouth of the river. But you will not find many raindrops there. Most of the river's flow originates elsewhere - most of the information content of the river also originates elsewhere. So where does the information content present at the "mouth" of the double-slit experiment (the interference pattern) originate? At the electron source, or "down-river"? It is easy to show that it originates down-river, at the slits, just as the path of the river's flow is determined by the structure of the river-valley, not the properties of rain-drops or their amalgamated river flow. The confusion arises by attempting to treat the source with fundamental, quantum laws, but then trying to characterize their interactions with the walls of the river valley (slits) as purely classical amalgamations, rather then attempting to deal with the trillion, trillion, trillion particles making up those walls. So you end up with a part fundamental (particle) and part classical amalgam (wave) description, that seems much more mysterious than it actually is. But it is no more mysterious than looking at the lips of a ventriloquist's dummy, and expecting to see rivers of information pouring forth. The source of the information lies elsewhere. When you "attribute" the source of information incorrectly, as being an "attribute" of something other than the true source, it is no wonder that confusion and "weird" behaviors materialize to haunt quantum theory.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 11:41 GMT
Robert,
I agree you view, but it has a horizon. Beyond that anthropocentric reality is a greater truth.
Consider your sinusoidal wave travelling the empty highway at c. It traverses d/t wrt the rest frame of the highway. No problem, but of course it can't then be 'measured'! The moment we add a bunch of electrons to create a detector, then the wavelength (so frequency) they find will be that ON detection, not those 'prior to' detection. That is the point which human intellect has so far failed to see. Detected frequency IS then observer dependent, and is then always c/n in the rest frame of the detector.
Once you've got your head around that, we then need to 'back off' and take an overview from out in space. What if there are TWO similar planets, both with empty roads, but rotating in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS! If we could 'see' the moving ('propagating') waves we would then see two DIFFERENT cases of c. Ergo c and the c' which many (Tom for instance) denies!
What reclaims logic and the SR postulates is then applying the first lesson to the second case. Al light interacting with our lenses or antenna WHEREVER we are has been instantaneously modulated to the new LOCAL 'c' in preparation for measurement.
Very few have taken the 'slow down and think' path far enough to be able to rationalise the initially complex and unfamiliar dynamics. I believe you've glimpsed them already in parts and have great hopes that you'll manage to put them together.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 11:57 GMT
Eckard,
'OMG' is Oh my God! I agree with many of your points, but I try to simplify and be precise. The only confusion is due to the different and unfamiliar 'assumptions' I must specify.
Within the Michelson etc. findings is still 'allowed' the entrained inertial systems ('ionospheres') which Lodge wrongly ruled out with his 'inertial frame error'. There is then indeed no "preferred" frame because ALL frames are (equally) 'preferred'! All 'speed' has a LOCAL background as it's datum, which itself is in motion at some speed (max c) within it's own LOCAL background, which itself is in motion at some speed (max c) within it's own LOCAL background, etc etc ad infinitum; from single particles through all mass 'systems' (inc. lenses) right up to universes.
If you read my post above to Rob very carefully you may rationalise the implications.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 12:24 GMT
Akinbo,
"I am not yet familiar with extinction but will familiarize myself with it. But what does it change in the battle between Galilean and Lorentz transformation? I doubt little"
I've shown the mechanism giving the asymptotic Lorentz limit to the Galilean transformation. There's no need for 'battle', and extinction is at it's heart. I suggest science is about
finding unity not fighting wars!!
Consider a block of glass (a 'discrete field' = DFM) moving fast in space, or perhaps a Shuttle windscreen on 're-entry' into increasing electron density. Radio and light waves pass through just fine as the old wavelength is 'extinguished' and becomes the new Doppler shifted one (with each electron interaction).
But as plasma density at the nose increases (wavelength reduces towards gamma) the waves struggle increasingly to penetrate. This change is on a 'Power Curve', increasing 'non-linearly' as 'optical breakdown mode' approaches (Google it) not penetrating at all at Gamma. That non-linear curve is simply described mathematically by the 'Lorentz Factor'.
The extinction is obviously of the old speed, frequency and vector (wavefunction 'collapse') so also implements refraction. In more diffuse media the extinction may be over many light years, giving the gentle 'space-time' curve found, along with 'birefringence' during the process (both old and new 'axis' are detectable). (i.e. Google 'atmospheric birefringence'. or;
PRL; Cosmic Rotation.Now quite a few jigsaw puzzle pieces came together there, and once you rationalise them you should see where many more also fit. But one step at a time! Extinction is just the old signal becoming the new local one, at local c in the new discrete field.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 13:39 GMT
Thanks Peter,
I thought 'extinction' would be some exotic phenomenon but if all it is is that the old speed and frequency change on encountering a new matter medium (or one of differing density) to a new speed and frequency that is all in keeping with Galilean relativity. In the new medium (like under the deck in Galileo's ship) the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is what some may call Lorentz transformation but is actually provided for in Galilean relativity. I don't at the moment have sympathy for 'wavefunction collapse'. Above deck c' = c+v, below deck c' = c, since relative velocity, v of observer to light = 0, even though the ship is moving. If I get you correctly, 'extinction' is what happens at the boundary?
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 15:53 GMT
Akinbo;
"'extinction' is what happens at the boundary?" Yes. Thickness of boundary may be from nm to megaparsec scale.
Our atmosphere is a boundary zone (thus M&M's non zero result). The Top guy in atmospheric refraction is A T Young;
USN Model Basis. and also; Young, A.T., Sunset science. IV. Low-altitude refraction Astron.J. 127, 3622-3637(2004).
The 'Lorentz transformation' is properly just the NON-LINEARITY of the Galilean transformation when approaching the limit c at min wavelength Gamma. It is a good approximation. It's also found as the power curve in the LHC approaching c.
You must consider a glass deck-hatch in Galileo's ship to physically allow the light in and implement the (JM) rotation of optical axis and speed change we call 'refraction' (including the independent 'kinetic' element of it).
Wavefunction collapse is poorly understood, but it is none the less one 'quantum' description of refraction. If you discard just one member from the ontological construction, then like the Eiffel tower it will be coherence that collapses, returning it all to the tangled mess we have now! Nature's not a 'pick-n-mix' sweet shop.
Is it al coming together yet?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 20:59 GMT
Variable Speed of Light Topples Einstein
You walk along the fence. Relative to you, the posts have speed c (not the speed of light of course) and the frequency you measure is f=c/d, where d is the distance between the posts.
Now you start running along the fence and your speed increases by v. Relative to you, the speed of the posts shifts from c to c'=c+v. This shift in the speed...
view entire post
Variable Speed of Light Topples Einstein
You walk along the fence. Relative to you, the posts have speed c (not the speed of light of course) and the frequency you measure is f=c/d, where d is the distance between the posts.
Now you start running along the fence and your speed increases by v. Relative to you, the speed of the posts shifts from c to c'=c+v. This shift in the speed of the posts relative to you causes the frequency you measure to shift from f=c/d to f'=c'/d=(c+v)/d.
A light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000km) towards you (the observer/receiver). Relative to you,
the pulses have speed c and the frequency you measure is f=c/d, where d is the distance between the pulses.
Now you start running towards the light source and your speed increases by v (v is small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored). Relative to you,
the speed of the pulses shifts from c to c'=c+v. This shift in the speed causes the frequency you measure to shift from f=c/d to f'=c'/d=(c+v)/d:
"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."
If you had started running away from the light source, then, relative to you,
the speed of the pulses would have shifted from c to c'=c-v and the frequency you measured from f=c/d to f'=c'/d=(c-v)/d:
"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."
Clearly one can only explain the shift from f=c/d to f'=(c±v)/d in terms of the shift from c to c'=c±v. However the equation c'=c±v is fatal for special relativity so
Einsteinians usually avoid the topic:
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 06:03 GMT
Tom, I was not kidding, I do consider the argument brilliant, and I think it deserves a clear counter-argument. Also I did scratched my head to find it. Here it is:
Consider this:
"An observer/receiver moving with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored) towards the light source measures the frequency of the light pulses to be f'=(c+v)/d"
It states: "let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored". The Lorenz factor gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v*v/c*c) so 1/gamma = sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) = sqrt((1-v/c)(1+v/c)). In the quoted argument, the factor 1/gamma due to time dilation is ignored probably as being consider second order in v/c. However, even in relativity there is a Doppler shift of the order of v/c so this is not enough to distinguish between Lorentz and Galilean transformations, and one needs to go to second order v/c terms. In Galilean transformations there are none, but not in relativity.
Bottom line, when v 0 is the same as c/v->infinity or c->infinity and "infinity + v = infinity". The point here is that we are not talking about adding small velocities v1+v2, but talking about adding a small velocity with an "infinite" velocity.
Long story short: for small v, the relativistic effects are second order in v/c, and c->infinity. Therefore the c+v=c because c = infinity. Also I did like the argument against special relativity: it is clear, concise, and it deserves a to the point refutation without appealing to higher authority, experiments, or geometric arguments.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 06:10 GMT
" ... it deserves a to the point refutation without appealing to higher authority, experiments, or geometric arguments."
Does it deserve to be subjected to division by zero?
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 06:13 GMT
One more thing:
I think the confusion stems from demanding uniform convergence when only point-convergence exists. The limit from Lorenz to Galileo has one kind of convergence when ALL velocities are small (second order in v/c) and another kind of convergence when combining small with large velocities (first order in v/c). Functional analysis has tons of examples when uniform convergence is not true, but the weaker form of convergence holds.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 06:40 GMT
"I think the confusion stems from demanding uniform convergence when only point-convergence exists."
What confusion? Infinities sum linearly -- that's where you are confused -- however, a point at infinity lives only on a compact manifold.
A simple arithmetic theorem informs us that any point can simultaneously approach any set of points provided that it is far enough away. That's point convergence, finite for any point, to the limit of infinity. And that's what makes the "brilliant argument" nothing more than a steaming pile -- the limit of the speed of light is finite because physically real measurements are only between mass points, not spacetime points.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 06:27 GMT
Correction:
a paragraph was completely messed up during upload:
"Bottom line, when v 0 is the same as c/v->infinity or c->infinity and "infinity + v = infinity". The point here is that we are not talking about adding small velocities v1+v2, but talking about adding a small velocity with an "infinite" velocity."
a large section is missing in between: "Bottom line, when" and "0 is the same as..."
I did not save the original text, but hopefully my explanation remained clear. Special relativity refutation is based on assuming uniform convergence of the limit from Lorenz to Galilean transformations.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 06:54 GMT
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."
Let "the distance between subsequent pulses" be 300000 km. Then the frequency measured by the stationary receiver is f = 1 s^(-1) and that measured by the moving receiver is f' = 4/3 s^(-1). Accordingly, the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is:
c' = (4/3)c = 400000 km/s
in violation of special relativity.
The relativistic corrections change essentially nothing. The speed of the receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. Accordingly, the corrected f' is (1.05)*(4/3) s^(-1) and the corrected c' is (1.05)*(400000) km/s. Special relativity remains violated.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 14:37 GMT
Florin,
Nice analysis, but distracted by Pentcho's incorrectly founded ideas. Stay with Robs and mine and you'll penetrate the confusion, and use the wavelength (L not f) Doppler shift equations of Astronomy and Optics.
Discrete Field Model Axiom 1. Space is a very diffuse dielectric medium, but big!
2. Electrons absorb EM waves and re-emit at the Local (so not 1 'absolute')...
view entire post
Florin,
Nice analysis, but distracted by Pentcho's incorrectly founded ideas. Stay with Robs and mine and you'll penetrate the confusion, and use the wavelength (L not f) Doppler shift equations of Astronomy and Optics.
Discrete Field Model Axiom 1. Space is a very diffuse dielectric medium, but big!
2. Electrons absorb EM waves and re-emit at the Local (so not 1 'absolute') c.
3. All 'detectors' are constituted by matter or do not exist!
Waves propagating at c then approach a detector moving towards them at v. When the first peak hits it is slowed. Measurement of anything needs TWO wave peaks, and by the time the second peak arrives the detector has moved, so the WAVELENGTH is Doppler shifted relative to speed v. (we can ignore 'n').
We can then use 'time' to derive a 'frequency'. HOWEVER, In the assumed equation; f'=(c+v)/d we've now found that the f relates to the DETECTOR frame NOT the rest frame for the distance d. That's why that equation is invalid.
You may find this enlightened view of 'discrete field' dynamics so unfamiliar you wont match it to any pattern existing in your neural network. That does not mean it's wrong, but that our previous fundamental hidden assumptions have been wrong. (It also makes it almost impossible to remember!) The transformation constant for a 'fixed observer' case is not then the ; c = f' * L', but c' = f * L'.
The Lorentz Factor also simply emerges mechanistically approaching the 'non-linear optics' optical breakdown (OB mode) limit at gamma, when approaching max electron/ proton plasma density ~10^23/cm^-3 at high relative speed/ionization rates;
Optical Breakdown limit as a mechanism for the LT. So the SR postulates are proven but consistent with the LT and a logical Copenhagen interpretation.
Of course that only scratches the surface, and even if correct I'm sure it's far too 'different' from present assumptions to be accepted any time yet. My '2020 Vision' essay gave an estimate of when.
best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 15:09 GMT
The only reasonable way to derive the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer) is by assuming, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity:
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in...
view entire post
The only reasonable way to derive the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer) is by assuming, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity:
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
Tony Harker: "In a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t."
Consequence: The speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer is:
c' = distance/time = (c - Vo)t/t = c - Vo,
in violation of special relativity.
It takes constant and painful exercise in crimestop, singing hymns, going into convulsions etc to convince oneself that:
c' = c - Vo = c,
as required by special relativity.
This picture is extremely inspirational.
"He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 18:09 GMT
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) 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+v)/L = c'/L
where c'=c+v is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. Special relativity is violated.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 21:24 GMT
Here the fatal equation c'=c+v is explicitly used in the derivation of the Doppler frequency shift:
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 is replaced by c:
f' = c'/(lambda) = (c+vO)/(lambda)
where c'=c+vO is the speed of light relative to the observer. Clearly special relativity is violated.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 16:24 GMT
The only way to save special relativity:
If a light source emits pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000 km), an observer moving with speed v towards / away from the source measures the frequency of the pulses to be f'=(c±v)/d. Accordingly, the speed of the pulses relative to the observer is c'=c±v, in violation of special relativity.
There is an assumption allowing the speed of the pulses relative to the observer to remain unchanged (c'=c) while the measured frequency is still f'=(c±v)/d. However this assumption is extremely silly and clever Einsteinians would never advance it explicitly. Here it is:
The extremely silly assumption without which special relativity is doomed: When the observer starts moving towards / away from the light source with speed v, the distance between the pulses somehow shifts from d to d'=cd/(c±v), Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 16:43 GMT
"The extremely silly assumption without which special relativity is doomed: When the observer starts moving towards / away from the light source with speed v, the distance between the pulses somehow shifts from d to d'=cd/(c±v), Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity."
Valev, you know that if this were any other forum, you would have been booted long ago for trolling. Special relativity assumes measurement between mass points, not spacetime points. Your futile "argument" amounts to internet pollution.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 20:48 GMT
Thomas Howard Ray wrote: "Valev, you know that if this were any other forum, you would have been booted long ago for trolling. Special relativity assumes measurement between mass points, not spacetime points. Your futile "argument" amounts to internet pollution."
The first and the third sentences are very clear, thanks, I love you too, but the second one:
"Special relativity assumes measurement between mass points, not spacetime points."
is enigmatic. Could you elaborate on that?
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 23:53 GMT
"'"Special relativity assumes measurement between mass points, not spacetime points.'"
is enigmatic. Could you elaborate on that?"
I could. However, if you know special relativity well enough to ridicule it, the statement should not be enigmatic.
A spacetiime field influence convergent on center point of mass is self-limiting in its relation to every other mass. This is known as Mach's Principle, the philosophical foundation of general relativity.
Special relativity, which refers to rigid metric transformations, is divergent and therefore not self-limiting; rather, the local transformations are limited to the distance at which two bodies can have physically exchanged information instaneously. That limit is c. Point convergence and line (ray) divergence leaves a 1-dimension singularity. Therefore, no such term as c' is admitted. Ironically, it is the flaw in general relativity inherited from the pathology of special relativity that makes your proposition untenable. The singularity will form before you can add a velocity.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 08:00 GMT
The actual problem:
A light source emits pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000 km).
A stationary observer/receiver measures the frequency to be f=c/d; accordingly the speed of the pulses relative to him is c.
An observer/receiver moving with speed v towards the source measures the frequency to be f'=(c+v)/d; accordingly the speed of the pulses relative to him is:
c' = ?
The reasonable answer:
c' = df' = c + v
The unreasonable answer (given by special relativity):
c' = d'f' = c
where d'=cd/(c+v) is an ad hoc requirement without any physical meaning - it is just the factor able to convert the dangerous c'=c+v into the glorious c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 11:57 GMT
There *is no* c' term. To introduce one is to divide by zero, because you have assumed a privileged point of reference ("stationary observer").
You have absolutely no understanding of special relativity -- the motion of the observer is independent of the speed of light, such that measurements recorded by every observer in every inertial frame are valid. "Inertial frame" is the critical component; it ensures that all physically real measurements are between mass points in relation, not between imagined fixed and moving points of spacetime.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 14:59 GMT
Tom'
"The singularity will form before you can add a velocity."
Which goes to the point that you can't just pull 'action' out of the hat and then say that 'time' is the result. jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 20:14 GMT
Rob,
Thanks for your response, yes I did mean Planck's Relation. And in regards a 'single' photon, I think I have some appreciation for your interest in Fourier Transforms trying to thin out the herd. There is a current TV ad by a vitamin brand that says the healthy human eye can see the light of a candle at a distance of 10 miles, which for me is a glimpse of how vast the amalgamation from even a small source must be.
I was struck by your preponderance on the role of the slit in creating interference patterns. I guess I always just assumed that was how the experiment was understood to give confidence in results. Any particle we might assume as being matter, will have an electromagnetic field which would effect an electromagnetic waveform, whether on a slit edge or the lattice in a diffraction crystal. Like a tiny little electric motor/genset. So why wouldn't gravity curve it some too! Think of the amalgam of electrostatic repulsion at the surface of the sun, and gravity is so strong it can still curve starlight. Pardon the digression, but if gravity is not the strongest of unified forces wouldn't the sun deflect EMR like the slit edge? You and Tom could put your heads together. It seems to me both phenomenon are similarly acceleration related.
But back to the lonely photon, my interest is in idealizing a stream emission as a simple theoretic geometric model which interprets the sinusoidal wave as the signature of a rise and fall of EM field strengths. So I try to ask questions to find out how conventions treat the subject. Thanks again, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 21:08 GMT
John,
"I think I have some appreciation for your interest in Fourier Transforms..."
"But back to the lonely photon, my interest is in idealizing a stream emission as a simple theoretic geometric model which interprets the sinusoidal wave as the signature of a rise and fall of EM field strengths. So I try to ask questions to find out how conventions treat the subject."
Now think of how QM describes that lonely photon's rise and fall in amplitude... As a Fourier Superposition of INFINITELY long, in both directions, sinusoids, that just happen to add up to the "pulse shape" of a single photon. But what casual agent knew, infinitely long ago, that it had to start emitting those sinusoids, all with just the right phases and amplitudes, eons before the big bang, so that they would all add up, at just the right moment, to form that photon?
The math works, but in terms of providing any insight into causal agency, the Fourier Transforms (and thus superposition), at the heart of Quantum Theory, are the ultimate source of all the confusion. Continuing with my river analogy, the confusion flows out of the choice to use non-causal Fourier Transforms to describe casual phenomenon, not the phenomenon itself.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 22:14 GMT
Rob,
"(...superposition), at the heart of Quantum Theory, are the source of all the confusion."
The maths drown me so I'll have to go with the flow. But yes, indeed. I would take it back a bit further to the original Bohr 'quantum leap' being a case of classic Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. It assumes that because the Planck Quantum is evidenced in any wave event that the quantum leap is the cause. Looking at it from an electrical engineering perspective, a resistance circuit will draw only as much current as the resistor can pass. The quantum leap simply supplies it. Which brings me to my question as to whether it is conventionally permitted to continuously divide the quantum as a constituent of a coupled charge, the proportions of which are dependent on wavelength. The implication being that the "pulse shape" is determined by an amplitude predicated on a charge quantity; that accelerates the charge quantity predicated on the finite time interval of the wavelength. Fourier Transforms applied to that rationale would be causal at origin, and arguably necessary, there is no reason to assume that the stream of emission would be consistently regular producing a uniform series of wavelength. While an excited atom would shed energy continuously it would firstly be a quantity relating to the time interval establishing a wavelength. We could call it a Planckton. This of course doesn't explain why spacetime chooses the Planck Quantum in the first place, but neither did Bohr. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 23:02 GMT
"Which goes to the point that you can't just pull 'action' out of the hat and then say that 'time' is the result. jrc "
That's right, John R. To stick my neck out a little, I think that the principle of least action being scale invariant is the best argument that time is continuous, and therefore spacetime resists quantizing.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 01:51 GMT
Tom,
"I think that the principle of least action being scale invariant is the best argument that time is continuous, and therefore spacetime resists quantizing."
I agree, and conversely that because there is nothing we can look to establishing a universal metric for scale, least action requires at least operational scale invariance, where the action is least. In pondering this post, it occurred to me that could be at the Schwarzschild radius horizon. Singularity being a mathematic property, which you have often tried to explain as being inherited by GR from the equivalence principle in SR, is not the 'fault' of SR. You could have that stemming from any sort of equivalence, it's a property of the limit conditions. The singularity beyond the horizon then might be resolved as existential true scale invariance. I've been trying to tease out a simple geometric progression from any covariance to invariance for some while, but something's got ahold of my toe. 'e, phi, c' hhmmm... jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 05:17 GMT
OOOPS, Tom, sorry,
I meant "....you so often try to explain, 'cause it don't always take."
{cheers} jrc
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 5, 2014 @ 14:11 GMT
Thomas Howard Ray wrote: "There *is no* c' term. To introduce one is to divide by zero, because you have assumed a privileged point of reference ("stationary observer")."
The c' term has nothing to do with division by zero, and division by zero has nothing to do with "a privileged point of reference", and "a privileged point of reference" has nothing to do with the stationary observer who is just at rest with respect to the light source.
Are you facetious?
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 12:46 GMT
" ... stationary observer who is just at rest with respect to the light source."
Impossible, since the observer's motion is always less than the speed of light.
"Are you facetious?"
No. Einstein was only 16 when he realized this fact, with his reflected image thought experiment.
Stop opening new threads. Nothing you say is that important.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 14:40 GMT
Me: " ... stationary observer who is just at rest with respect to the light source."
Thomas Howard Ray: "Impossible, since the observer's motion is always less than the speed of light."
Your reply is totally irrelevant to my statement, Thomas Howard Ray. If you are not facetious... I don't know what to say.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 16:24 GMT
You don't know what to say, Mr. Valev, because you don't know the fundamentals of special relativity, which is why you also find my explanation irrelevant.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 16:26 GMT
Tom,
Pentcho has inadvertently bolstered your argument that scale invariance of least action is a proof of the continuous nature of time. If you'll notice, for his schema to work, time and space would have to vary in operational scale in any given velocity event that he propounds as a c+v, or c-v equation. To ascribe a covariance in any event would require arbitrarily assigning a metric of interval to each.
It brings a tear to my glass eye. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 16:30 GMT
You're right, John R, though I doubt Pentcho has thought about it that deeply.
My grandmother also had a glass eye. :-)
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 18:18 GMT
Tom,
I'll bet she did. She clearly saw to impressing you with argumentative integrity, and probably engaged you in activities exercising counting and sorting tasks. Did you know (?) that, many people whom experience dyslexia 'finger count' when they work any math. It took a while to see in your diverse posts, but there is a very holographic quality in your thinking and in general any discrete process you discuss has the whole picture of hierarchy in the axiomatic structure of any of your arguments.
Happy New Year, by the way, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 21:37 GMT
That's perceptive of you, John R. Yes, I did once count on my fingers -- an odder thing I remember after my auto accident, though, was that I was quite old, maybe 11 or 12, before I understood that "minus" means the same thing as "take away." I know this sounds silly -- it's true, though, if one were to ask me, e.g., "what is 7 minus 2?" I would have no idea what they were talking about. I knew that "7 take away 2" is 5, and I could solve the written problem 7 - 2 = ?.
It makes me uncomfortable to talk about personal things in a public forum. However, I think this somewhat relates to the topic. Right brain functions (the area of my head injury at age 3 or 4) are said to be the domain of creative thinking and left brain functions the domain of analytical thinking.
The complete functioning is reciprocal -- just like the reciprocal physcial relations in the mathematically complete theory of special relativity.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 7, 2014 @ 00:45 GMT
No, Tom, you're right, the intent was not toward person but goes to the process of maping. Thank-you jrc
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 6, 2014 @ 18:30 GMT
Once more the analysis of the Albert Einstein Institute showing that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, 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."
That is, the speed of the pulses relative to the light source is c=3d/t and relative to the moving receiver is:
c' = c + v = 4d/t
where t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", d is the distance between subsequent pulses and v=c/3 is the speed of the receiver relative to the light source. Clearly special relativity is violated.
The relativistic corrections cannot save special relativity - for v=c/3 gamma is 1.05 which makes c' even slightly greater than c+v.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 7, 2014 @ 18:35 GMT
"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u. Observed period T' = (lambda)/(v+u). Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v) (negative sign means observer moving AWAY)"
Clearly the derivation of the Doppler frequency shift:
f' = f(1±u/v)
is based on the assumption:
"Speed observed = v+u" (v is the speed of the waves relative to the stationary source)
This assumption is FATAL FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY and yet it is the only reasonable one. If Einsteinians believe it is false, they should state that explicitly, e.g. in the following way:
False: Speed observed = v+u
True: Speed observed = v
Then honest Einsteinians should advance some other assumption, justify it as best they can, and deduce the frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v) from it. Until this is done, the assumption:
"Speed observed = v+u"
remains the only reasonable one, confirmed experimentally countless times (insofar as the frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v) has been confirmed experimentally countless times).
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 16, 2014 @ 17:15 GMT
Both special and general relativity are refuted by the Pound-Rebka experiment:
A light source at the bottom of a tower of height h emits light upwards. As the light reaches a stationary receiver at the top of a tower, its speed relative to that receiver is:
A) c' = c(1-gh/c^2) (Newton's emission theory)
B) c' = c(1-2gh/c^2) (Einstein's general relativity)
C) c' = c (Richard Epp, Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox)
The following analysis clearly shows that A is correct while B and C are false predictions:
"In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."
The frequency measured at the bottom of the tower is f=c/L, where L is the wavelength. The frequency measured by the stationary receiver at the top of the tower is:
f' = f(1-gh/c^2) = (c/L)(1-gh/c^2) = c'/L
where c'=c(1-gh/c^2) is the speed of the light relative to that receiver. From the equivalence principle, c'=c(1-gh/c^2)=c-v is also the speed of light relative to an observer/receiver moving, in gravitation-free space, away from the light source with speed v. Clearly both general and special relativity are false.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 2, 2014 @ 09:06 GMT
Absurdities, Not Paradoxes, in Einstein's Relativity
Time dilation is mutual, according to special relativity. Yet the retardation of a clock can only be demonstrated (calculated) if that clock is allowed to travel, that is, allowed to move from point A to point B, in some inertial system. If the scenario craftily precludes such a travel for one of two clocks in relative motion, time...
view entire post
Absurdities, Not Paradoxes, in Einstein's Relativity
Time dilation is mutual, according to special relativity. Yet the retardation of a clock can only be demonstrated (calculated) if that clock is allowed to travel, that is, allowed to move from point A to point B, in some inertial system. If the scenario craftily precludes such a travel for one of two clocks in relative motion, time dilation becomes effectively asymmetrical - only the other clock's retardation can be demonstrated.
This is the whole secret behind the so-called twin paradox. The travelling twin/clock is allowed to move from point A to point B in the sedentary twin/clock's system, but the reverse is impossible for the simple reason that the travelling twin/clock's system is, in the scenario taught by Einsteinians, point-like (consists of a twin and/or a clock and nothing else).
As soon as the relativistic scenario is changed and the sedentary twin/clock is seen moving from point A to point B is the travelling twin/clock's system, Einstein's relativity dismally falls apart:
A clock on the ground is stationary and a train moves towards it. When the clock at the front end of the train passes the stationary clock, an observer on the ground sets the stationary clock to read the same as the front end clock. Finally, while the train and the stationary clock are still in contact, the train stops and the train's clocks simultaneously (as judged from the train's system) stop ticking. That is, at 5 o'clock (train time) all clocks on the train stop both moving and ticking.
Two important observations:
1. Immediately after the stopping of the train, clocks on the train read 5 o'clock while the clock on the ground reads less - say, 4 o'clock (according to special relativity of course). That is, the clock on the ground has been running slow.
2. As the clock at the front end of the train stops, it has just finished the outward leg of the journey described in the usual relativistic scenario. However, since the new scenario has allowed the clock on the ground to move from point A to point B in the train system, the conclusion is different: the travelling clock (at the front end of the train) shows more time elapsed than the stationary clock on the ground (the travelling twin has grown older than his sedentary brother).
Already at this stage the absurdity is obvious so there is no need to finish the story by considering the inward leg of the journey.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 2, 2014 @ 09:54 GMT
Pentcho,
I agree in the absurdities of Einstein's relativity. Atomic clocks are known to tick faster in a lower gravitational field, at a higher altitude for example. But pendulum clocks will tick or swing more slowly in a lower gravitational field. Therefore the concept of 'time' can't be separated from the type of clock used. Why has this simple refutation of his theory been overlooked?
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 7, 2014 @ 15:30 GMT
Absurdities, Not Paradoxes, in Einstein's Relativity II
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."
Here lies the secret to the twin paradox: In...
view entire post
Absurdities, Not Paradoxes, in Einstein's Relativity II
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."
Here lies the secret to the twin paradox: In the scenario sanctioned by Einsteinians, the travelling twin's clock is allowed to move from point A to point B in the sedentary twin's system and accordingly CAN be checked against two clocks belonging to that system. In contrast, the sedentary twin's clock is NOT allowed to move from point A to point B is the travelling twin's system and accordingly CANNOT be checked against two clocks belonging to that system. Time dilation is asymmetrical (not mutual) in this scenario and Einsteinians can safely sing "Divine Einstein", "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity", and "That's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah".
Scenarios that do allow the sedentary twin's clock to move from point A to point B in the travelling twin's system are easy to imagine. Any of them would be fatal for Einstein's relativity. Needless to say, people that could teach such scenarios are successfully marginalized:
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 10, 2014 @ 08:10 GMT
The original hoax:
Albert Einstein 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B... (...) It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide."
The scenario craftily precludes the travel of the clock at B in the moving system of the clock initially at A. As a result, time dilation becomes effectively asymmetrical - only the retardation of the clock initially at A can be demonstrated.
Let there be a large number of clocks moving in the closed polygonal line, one after the other. The single stationary clock (at B) is placed at the middle of one of the sides of the polygon and its reading is compared with the readings of the moving clocks which pass it at short intervals.
In this scenario, according to special relativity, the stationary clock runs SLOWER than the moving clocks, in contradiction with Einstein's assertion above. For instance, if both the stationary clock and a moving clock read zero as they meet, and if the next moving clock reads 5 as it reaches the stationary clock, and if the two moving clocks are synchronized, the stationary clock will read, say, 4 as it meets the second moving clock.
Clearly Einstein's relativity is absurd, not paradoxical.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 11, 2014 @ 17:20 GMT
If one believes in Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, one should also believe that the volume of material objects can be reduced unlimitedly without spending any energy, and that the shrunk object still releases the energy that should have been put in shrinkage when, after being trapped in a small container, it tries to restore its original volume:
"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."
"Un perchiste se saisit d'une perche mesurant 10 m, puis il s'élance en direction d'une grange mesurant 5 m de profondeur et percée de deux portes A et B (cf figure). On suppose que le perchiste se déplace à une vitesse constante v telle que gamma = 2. Un fermier, immobile par rapport à la grange, décide de fermer simultanément les portes A et B quand l'extrémité Q de la perche parvient à la porte B."
"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 14, 2014 @ 08:30 GMT
Einstein's Relativity : Lies Are Getting Subtler
In order to justify the introduction of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, Einsteinians used to teach the following two blatant lies:
1. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory predicted that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer measuring it. (The truth is that Maxwell's theory...
view entire post
Einstein's Relativity : Lies Are Getting Subtler
In order to justify the introduction of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, Einsteinians used to teach the following two blatant lies:
1. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory predicted that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer measuring it. (The truth is that Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer.)
2. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer measuring it. (The truth is that in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally showed that the speed of light DOES DEPEND on the speed of the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.)
Examples:
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."
The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, p. 19: "If she fires the laser toward you - and if you had the appropriate measuring equipment - you would find that the speed of approach of the photons in the beam is 670 million miles per hour. But what if you run away, as you did when faced with the prospect of playing catch with a hand grenade? What speed will you now measure for the approaching photons? To make things more compelling, imagine that you can hitch a ride on the starship Enterprise and zip away from your friend at, say, 100 million miles per hour. Following the reasoning based on the traditional Newtonian worldview, since you are now speeding away, you would expect to measure a slower speed for the oncoming photons. Specifically, you would expect to find them approaching you at (670 million miles per hour - 100 million miles per hour =) 570 million miles per hour. Mounting evidence from a variety of experiments dating back as far as the 1880s, as well as careful analysis and interpretation of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, slowly convinced the scientific community that, in fact, this is not what you