Search FQXi

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

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:21am UTC, wrote KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK...

Thomas Ray: on 9/13/13 at 15:37pm UTC, wrote Zeeya, You continue to demonstrate why FQXi is among the best sources of...

John Merryman: on 9/13/13 at 15:18pm UTC, wrote Zeeya, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say flash in the pan. I...

Zeeya Merali: on 9/13/13 at 13:51pm UTC, wrote I'm bumping Mark's thread from 2010 up because I recently wrote an article...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 6/11/11 at 21:20pm UTC, wrote Gravitational, electromagnetic, and inertial equivalency demonstrates a...

Alan Lowey: on 6/11/11 at 9:37am UTC, wrote Yes, nice meeting you Steve and Ray and all. The very best wishes to you in...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/9/11 at 18:39pm UTC, wrote Hi dear all, Dear Alan, Ray, thank you very much. All the best also. ...

Alan Lowey: on 6/9/11 at 11:08am UTC, wrote Here's someone who has similar ideas as I do: [copied over from...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "John, You need to be able to explain why mass and energy are represented..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

John Cox: "Lorraine, Then we must agree to disagree about what physically constitutes..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Lorraine Ford: "Malcolm, I don’t agree for one minute with Rob’s or Georgina’s views..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Malcolm. Robert is not a troll but like everyone who comments on this..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

RECENT ARTICLES

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi BLOGS
January 27, 2020

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Massive Gravity Revolution of 2010? [refresh]

Blogger Mark Wyman wrote on Jul. 18, 2010 @ 20:00 GMT
Theoretical physicists love to ask “what if” questions, to explore the limits of mathematical self-consistency, even--perhaps especially--when the questions they are asking fly in the face of conventional wisdom. A classic story of theoretical tinkering concerns the graviton, the hypothetical fundamental particle that carries the gravitational force. In general relativity, the graviton--like the photon--has no mass. But as far back as 1939, Markus Fiertz and Wolfgang Pauli became the first to ask a heretical question: could the graviton have a mass?

What they found was a surprisingly subtle answer. They were able to formulate a theory of massive gravity; the surprise was that the theory was mathematically unique. Usually, theoretical physicists can find many mathematically consistent ways to state related theories and have to rely on experiments or even aesthetic criteria to narrow down the scope of the possible. Hence the uniqueness of the Fierz-Pauli answer has been, for decades, a theoretical curiosity that tugs at the theorist’s intuition, tempting him to think that this rare mathematical uniqueness is a hint that this is a path worth following.

Following the Fierz-Pauli result, nothing much happened until the early 1970s. Then, there was a spate of study of massive gravity, with a roller coaster of results. First, van Dam, Veltman, and Zakharov looked at the theory and declared that, though self-consistent, the Fierz-Pauli theory could never describe our world. What they had discovered is a funny phenomenon now called the vDVZ discontinuity. This is the fact that the linear theory of Pauli and Fierz is completely disconnected from the physics of general relativity, even when the mass of the graviton is set to zero. The physical fact that underlies this disconnect is simple and surprising: adding a mass to the graviton gives it new degrees of freedom, going from the 2 “tensor” waves that characterize general relativistic waves to 5 modes--2 tensor, 2 vector, and 1 scalar--in the case of massive gravity. Adding the mass, like opening Pandora’s box, releases these extra modes in a way that can’t be undone: a theory with more degrees of freedom is simply different from the one that lacks them. These extra modes make gravity stronger, so we can tell for sure that gravity near us does not have these extra modes. Hence, if no way around this discontinuity could be found, the theory would be dead for good.

A couple of years later, though, a Russian physicist called Arkady Vainshtein found another unexpected surprise in massive gravity. The linear theory of Pauli and Fiertz was, he reasoned, not enough: linear perturbations are the start of a complete theory, but any real theory will also have non-linearities that can play an important role. So Vainshtein started checking what non-linearities would do to the apparently fatal vDVZ discontinuity. What he found was remarkable: the nonlinearities of the theory become stronger and stronger as the mass of the graviton shrinks. What this means is that when the graviton mass vanishes, the extra modes are completely frozen by their non-linearities, and the theory becomes compatible with general relativity after all! The idea is that if the graviton mass is small, this would force the extra modes to become non-linear in places, like our solar system, where there was a lot of energy density around; and since the non-linear theory looks just like general relativity, gravity could be massive without us having noticed it yet.

But the roller coaster ride wasn’t yet over. Later that same year, Boulware and Deser uncovered what everyone thought was a fatal flaw in Vainshtein’s solution to the Fiertz-Pauli problem: they proved that any non-linear theory of massive gravity must somewhere possess a ghost, which is theorists’ lingo for an intrinsic and uncontrollable instability that means a theory is, if not mathematically inconsistent, then nonetheless irredeemably unphysical. Bouware and Deser’s proof was so expansive and thorough that they managed to kill the theory of massive gravity for a few more decades.

In the meantime, two apparently unrelated developments have occurred. The first is a deepening of our understanding of perturbative theories, like Fiertz-Pauli gravity. These were once thought to be little parts of a fundamental, ultimate theory; in this mindset, the discovery of any problem or unavoidable anomaly in a theory was enough to kill that theory dead. However, the intervening years have taught us that theories defined perturbatively are actually much more flexible than that. We now call them effective field theories, and understand that they intrinsically possess regimes of validity and regimes in which they are invalid. That is, all our theories--even the celebrated Standard Model--are theories that describe what’s going on for certain energy and length scales, and only those length scales. If there seems to be a problem on length or energy scales where we know them to be invalid, then we don’t need to worry: those are probably totally phony problems, ones that will resolve themselves when the full theory is known.

This kind of evolution in thinking has been a big part of the story of modern physics. For instance, one of the theoretical conundrums that led to quantum mechanics was the question of why orbital electrons didn’t crash into the nuclei of atoms. After all, when we propel an electron in a circle in an experiment, it emits radiation and loses speed and angular momentum. It turns out, of course, that the regime of validity for the classical physics that describes electron radiation doesn’t include the length scales inside of an atom, where we have to use quantum mechanics to understand what’s going on.

The other development came with theoretical speculations about infinite extra dimensions, begun in earnest when Dvali, Gabadadze, and Porrati (DGP) proposed a model of the Universe with our familiar 4 dimensions plus one infinite dimension we couldn’t see. Theorists soon realized that, for 4D observers like us, a theory with an infinite extra dimension could be turned into an effective field theory for gravity, but one in which the graviton had a kind of “soft”, or energy-dependent, mass. This effective theory is related to but slightly different from the Fiertz-Pauli form; however, this kind of “soft” mass doesn’t really constitute “massive gravity”, which is why it doesn’t violate the proofs that the Fiertz-Pauli form was unique.

(Graviton plushie image above from www.particlezoo.net.)

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 00:30 GMT
Looks to me like more untestable postmodern pseudoscience.

Show me a definitive prediction that can tell us whether "massive gravity" is a useful approach to gravitation or just more Ptolemaic rubbish.

A definitive prediction is: Prior, Non-adjustable, Quantitative, Feasible and Unique to the theory being tested. Without Definitive Predictions/Empirical Testing science descends into New Age hermetics.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 09:33 GMT
Hey dear Robert,

But where were you......

We need realism ....because there with all the pseudo speculations ,that becomes ironic and the word is weak, very weak.

REAL SCIENCE = SPHERES... SPHERIZATION IN THE SPHERE....ROTATING QUANTUM AND COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES.....THEY ROTATE THUS THEY ARE !!!!!

The truth ,simple and evident .....don't copy but improve dear friends, scientists of all over the world.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 24, 2010 @ 16:14 GMT
Each star is of a different size, has a different mass, and is located at a different distance from every other star. It is all very well to suppose that gravity must be the accumulation of all the stars put together, except each star is in some sort of expansion or contraction mode that also differs in some way from all the companion stars that have ever existed, or that will ever exist.

Why, if your senses are only geared to act instantaneously in order to appreciate reality, do scientists waste time wildly speculating about what physical conditions must have been operational billions and billions of years ago?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 01:25 GMT
Massive gravity exists in some versions or models of N = 8 supergravity. Massive gravity is complicated stuff. It has been my sense that it does not enter into physics until energy reaches near Planck scale.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 13:22 GMT
One theoretical virtue that massive gravity does have, is to obviate the question of "missing mass." For if the missing mass is contained in force exchange particles themselves, what we measure as inertial force between mass points is only a local effect of the energy of the entire spacetime field -- i.e., nonlocal energy in a Mach's Principle type phemonenon implies action at a distance while getting rid of the "spookiness." I think this is what Einstein was moving toward in his "relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field."

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Friends,

In my models, massive gravity lives on the 5-brane (my book specifically discusses massive gravity), but we observe the holographic projection of that quantum gravity into spacetime via geometrical (relativistic) gravity.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 13:43 GMT
Massive gravity would contribute to the vacuum energy near the string scale or Planck scale. This could be a very large contribution. This is one reason I suspect that it does not contribute to the physical vacuum, or the post inflationary vacuum of the universe. Massive gravity is still an interesting problem, even if it is horribly complex, in maybe understanding the role of gravitation (including massive gravity) in the early universe.

One thing I noticed in this paper is that the theory involves quintic polynomials. These don't have a general root system of solutions by Galois theory.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 01:58 GMT
"What he found was remarkable: the nonlinearities of the theory become stronger and stronger as the mass of the graviton shrinks. What this means is that when the graviton mass vanishes, the extra modes are completely frozen by their non-linearities, and the theory becomes compatible with general relativity after all! The idea is that if the graviton mass is small, this would force the extra modes to become non-linear in places, like our solar system, where there was a lot of energy density around; and since the non-linear theory looks just like general relativity, gravity could be massive without us having noticed it yet."

"Theorists soon realized that, for 4D observers like us, a theory with an infinite extra dimension could be turned into an effective field theory for gravity, but one in which the graviton had a kind of “soft”, or energy-dependent, mass."

Is it that space has an inertial effect?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 19:46 GMT
The real problem is this infinity in fact.

There we return about the correct utilization of our referential and topology(which evolves,revolves, rotates)

Making simple,......the infinity can be seen with two main vues.1 our adds, multiplications and series....and their utilization interpreting the uniqueness and its finite number....we adds the number simply and

2 behind our wals , quantics and cosmologics, in fact, behind,above this physicality, we name this, the unknown.

We can't confound the infinity behind the walls and our infinities due to our method of calculations, simply.

The logic is the sister of the rationality in a pure objectivity of our 3D spacetime.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 19:51 GMT
Dear Steve,

You worry too much. Scale Invariance deals with the real infinity (the Multiverse), and renormalizes the "near-infinity" that we observe in our fractal fragment of Cantor dust Universe.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 20:04 GMT
Dear Ray,

I don't understand why these Multiverse, who has began with that in fact, it's Mr Wheeler I beleive.

It exists a team or what ,it's bizare these multiverses.

It was just a word I imagine from the inventor and now all becomes crazzy with these things.

Really Ray, it's not possible for a rational scientists all that.

Between us, it's a joke, no? or now it is a business from several universities, labs,....I really don't understand why these stupidities and this and that, and a n dimensions with violations there, no really it's not possible, it's a joke for the whole of the sciences community.

Strings,extradimensions, external cause of mass, 0 mass for graviton, and a kissing there, infinite, an entanglement with violations there, an effect bizare there...no but really I dream, we are on a scientific platform, I like the imagination but really where are we going Dr Cosmic Ray.What is all this circus.

Ps yes indeed I worry too much, it's like that.My anxiety is better now, fortunally.hihihi

ps 2 you are competent, why do you focus on these things Ray, you are really persuaded of these stupidities.I think really what no.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear Steve,

I understand that you choose not to accept more than that which we can see, and that's cool. IMHO, Scale Invaiance and the Multiverse is the most natural explanation for Infinity. The fact that my models admit scale invariance makes the Multiverse seem that much more reasonable to me.

My next paper will not have "TOE" in its title. I love solving puzzles, but even if I can piece together a self-consistent model for the TOE, there will be enough unconfirmable pieces that the physics community will never fully accept it. Its bad enough that they consider all of El Naschie's associates to be "crackpots", and I was briefly associated with him as well.

For the near-term, I'm going to focus on a smaller part of the problem.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (zenophysics.com) wrote on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 06:58 GMT
Just a thought experiment:

If gravity and acceleration were not just equivalent but identical, then the mediating particle would be the photon. Because when we push an object to accelerate it electro-magnetic force is used.

This brings up the question: How can gravity be identical to acceleration? See:

http://www.zenophysics.com/DWT/4b__Ordinary_Gravity.html

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 10:28 GMT
Einstein's equivalence principle is not a mathematical identity. The principle has to do with how we objectively measure acceleration in the vacuum. In common experience, one judges comparative speed in relation to stationary objects ("Oh, look how fast the trees go by when daddy drives." :-0 ) Einstein reasoned, if one were in deep space far from the influence of a gravity field, in a sealed "upwardly" moving elevator without reference to any outside object, one would not in principle be able to distinguish between the elevator floor pushing "up" against one's feet, and a gravitational force pulling "down."

This is an extension of Newtonian mechanics, in which gravitational acceleration is singular, toward the center of mass. The equivalence principle implies reversibility, consistent with continuous functions in classical physics.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (zenophysics.com) replied on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 23:36 GMT
For sure Einstein did not mathematically equate acceleration with gravity. I did in the FQXi essay contest "Gravity from the Ground Up". It is certainly speculative, and is not agreed upon science, but I think it makes sense. Gravity and Acceleration seem to be so intertwined because they are mathematically the same thing.

The moon sees the curvature of space-time caused by the earth. The moon consists of quantum mechanical particles that have an oscillating motion. This quantum mechanical motion of the moon is on the gradient of space-time caused by the earth. This moon motion on a gradient of space-time is mathematically a net acceleration and it is the force of gravity attracting the moon to the earth.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 02:23 GMT
Don,

"Because when we push an object to accelerate it electro-magnetic force is used."

I had to really think about this. Imagine that we use some high performance electronics that can generate frequency shifting photon, photons whose frequency shifts from f1 to f2. Let's say that we are very meticulous about lining up the phase angles from one frequency to the next. In priniple, we should be able to create what I call a shift-photon. Depending upon how long it takes to generate the shift photon, which I call the ramp period, that will determine the force carried by each photon.

If an electron bumps into a shift photon, here is the question: will it see a changing electromagnetic field and vibrate as any charge would? Will it respond at all to the changing frequency of the photon. What if there are N shift-photons going by every second. Will the electron be able to distinguish individual photons? Or will it begin to notice a potential energy gradient? If the electron distinguishes a potential energy gradient, I would argue that that effect of N shift photons with their frequency shifting, I would argue this will induce a sloping potential energy gradient that the mass of the electron will respond to. The mass of the electron will begin to accelerate in the sloping potential energy gradient.

report post as inappropriate

Wolf Krebs wrote on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 21:24 GMT
THE ILLUSION OF TIME

In an essay in Scientific American (Sci.Am. 302,6; p 59-65; 2010) Craig Callender reports that some theoretical physicists suggest that time does not exist. Their conclusion comes from quantum mechanical considerations. I am presenting some observations of our macroscopic world that lead to the same suggestion.

The three domains of time are future, present and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 02:58 GMT
Hi Wolf,

One little conundrum that Eckard and I have been discussing concerns the present. The present must contain a time interval because otherwise -everything- would be static in 3D space and unable to move. It is generally assumed that change requires time. As Eckard has also discussed, the future and past can be seen to be continuous as any instantaneous point that we might wish to call present can not contain time.If the past is no more and the future does not yet exist and the present between them can not be instantaneous, what can exist in reality?

This problem highlights for me the necessity for another model of reality that can explain the actual "material" reality that takes part in the physics of the universe, rather than just perception of reality which could be likened to an illusion. What is your opinion?

report post as inappropriate

FAST FRED replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 15:35 GMT
Nice post Wolf -- as you open minds and questions with that one. The integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought (and space) are inseparable from the integrated extensiveness and reality of time. We are always growing and changing, and incorporating aspects of past, future, and present. Variability and the integrated extensiveness of recurring experience are fundamental here (to the conception of time). Indeed, this is why basically (or to a significant extent) photons do not exist in time.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 16:27 GMT
Dear All,

Time is what makes things exist! When something runs out of time it seizes to exist. Nothing can exist instantaneously, but some positive lapse of time must make it present. This is the arrow of time. This is what The Second Law of Thermodynamic says IMO (see Entropy and The Arrow of Time).

The ‘observed’ exists for the ‘observer’ when there is equilibrium between them. This is so whether we consider physics or politics or social relations.

Any other notion of time is philosophic play on words,imho.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 20:59 GMT
Jason, the limits of thought/description are more clearly and sharply shown the more thought becomes like experience in general. So much for your "God".

Thought is NOT experience in general Jason. Experience in general is not a thought(s) Jason, it is not "created".

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 20:57 GMT
Dear Frank,

You, I and everyone, we are mere flees on the supremely itchy dog we call God.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 16:10 GMT
Dear Ray,

Cantor's dust is definitely too uniform as to have any correlate in reality. Perhaps you are intrigued by its property to converge to the measure zero.

What about Constantinos and action, I was made aware of the strange definition of action based on the difference, not the sum of potential and kinetic energy.

To me the present is the border between past and future, approximately represented by an interval of the past converging to duration zero. The Euclidean notion of number as a measure was unfortunately abandoned by the pupils of Gauss.

You wrote "... explanation for the discrete vs. continuous nature of reality."

Look into 527.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I read your paper during the essay contest and corresponded about it between Nov 2 and Nov 7. My paper was topic #520.

I think Constantinos' approach looks a lot like action, but he is using a Hamiltonian, rather than Lagrangian, approach. It seems that his concerns may be similar to yours. You should probably get a direct dialogue going with him over at topic # 640.

Is it more reasonable for the "present" to consist of the local neighborhood of Cantor dust (spread out over a small Delta(t)), or it it more reasonable for the "present" to consist of an instantaneous Dirac delta function on a Spacetime shell?

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Wolf Krebs wrote on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 01:29 GMT
Hi Fast Fred and Georgina:

Both of you touch another problem beyond time. It is how we perceive the world. We know, that our brain constructs a world from our sensory input, our experiences and our “knowledge.” All of us live in this virtual world which differers in each or us.

The purpose of science (for me) is to find out what the “real” world is. This seems to be almost impossible to achieve completely.

We are prisoners of our faculties. One of my favorite examples is color. Most of us are not aware of the fact that color is something our brain makes up. There is no “color” in the physical world only mixtures of electro-magnetic wavelengths. Any color can be produced by a million of wavelength mixtures.

Time seems to fall into the same category of things our brain invents to interpret the world.

That does not mean that time or color are useless. Color enables us to make finer distinctions between objects than brightness and contrast alone.

Time enabled us to develop our sophisticated world of science which does a very good job to explain almost everything that we can experience. However, it is the science of our non existing world of the past. It can, so-far, not explain what the present is and not what is real.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 02:46 GMT
Hi wolf,

well said. There is that which exists and there is that which is observed and experienced and they are not the same.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear Wolf,

"It can, so-far, not explain what the present is and not what is real. " The present is where you are afforded the opportunity to take action, tip dominoes, and fully interact with the causal chain. The past can never again become the present. There are no take backs, no time-machines, and no regrets.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 20:13 GMT
Jason,

I am rather surprised by this part of your statement."It can, so-far, not explain what the present is...

I have spent a lot of time explaining what the present is. It seems you just wish to ignore the explanation, or have already decided that it is incorrect and therefore there still is no explanation. Well It has been explained on this site over and over again and the explanation is not just going to have not happened. As you say there are no take backs. There are still regrets Jason. Its just that the past is gone and not still existing as a material reality in space time. It is only an image IMO

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 09:49 GMT
WHERE ARE YOU DEAR Mr James Putnam...

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Wolf Krebs wrote on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 15:50 GMT
Constantinos:

Good point! Unfortunately, God does not tell me anything. So I do not know what makes things real.

I only conclude that all real things reside in the present and that time is not part of it.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 02:27 GMT
Dear Brilliant Physics Minded Bloggers,

Question: what constitutes whether something is a quantum signal/system (and therefore exhibits wave behavior) versus a classical system with point-like particle behavior?

For example, I test and troubleshoot electronics. When I turn on my function genertor and connect the signal to an MPEG player, there is a 27MHz electrical signal flowing down the copper cable.

Is that 27 MHz treated like a quantum system of electrical waves? Or is it treated as a classical system of individual electrons moving around?

When I took solid state physics, we used quantum mechanics to derive a Schrodinger Equation solution for the crystal. This point suggests that the electron flow in a copper wire ought to be considered a quantum mechanics signal/system.

To help answer the question, what if we used a Fourier Series/Fourier Transform as a deciding test. If a signal can be described using a Fourier Series/Transform, then it has wave behavior. If it cannot be described with a Fourier Series/Transform, then it has to be a classical system. The Fourier waves would account for the necessary quantum entanglement.

As some signals get very large along the L axis, one would start to expect that, if it could be described as a quantum wave, than that wave could have standing waves of the form Psi = A cos(2pi x/L). What I'm trying to get at is that, the larger a quantum signal/system is, the larger the wavelengths have to be. For example, if we separated a quantumly entangled pair of electrons by 20 km, the waves between them would have a wavelength of 10km, and a frequency of f = c/lamda = 30K Hz.

In other words, further away (larger) equates to a lower and lower bandwidth available to maintain the quantum nature of the system.

Does this make sense?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 31, 2010 @ 14:52 GMT
Hi Jason

Don't normally stop in these parts, but good to see you here and I may be able to help with your question.

If you think 'Law of Conservation of Energy' it may give a better angle on the 30KHz.

I think for the rest you'd need to move on (or back) a bit from Fourier and develop a strict interpretation of the Huygens Principle and special case Ewald-Oseen extinction theorum.

Forget the horrid Integrodifferential Equations for a moment and think in 3D overview. They tend to prove what we've discussed before, that quanta are condensed locally with perturbation of waves, i.e. at a medium interface, which presupposes a background (ether) medium, and send out new refracted waves. This gives a very simple duality which matches observation ('photons' or photoelectrons condense locally at the detector or boundary).

Now we look again in a slightly different light and we find that it's a cancellation function, right through the medium. The old wave doesn't just dissappear, it is cancelled out leaving just the new, which, thinking more carefully, also implies a medium, and explains why the black lines in an interference pattern still contain energy. It may be considered a ground state of dark energy. (at 2.7degrees perhaps).

Keep thinking about that and we see, if our observers frame doesn't change, that the new wave is travelling at a different speed in the new medium. As this is the same process with a co-moving medium it means that light reaching any new medium (a lense for instance) will always be - effectively- changed to 'c' at the fine structure boundary. (as Feynman said). So no matter how fast we go we'll always measure light locally at 'c'. All within the postulates of SR, just adding a little Extra 'DFM' explanation.

Or, if you prefer the old model, the faster we go the thinner we get. Do let me know how you read the extinction theorum.

Best Wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 31, 2010 @ 22:15 GMT
Hi Peter,

I'm trying to point out that there are striking similarities between quantum waves, RF waves, and the AC signal waves that travel across a copper cable.

Classical behavior is typified by point like objects with mass, velocity, and the ability to be isolated. They obey the logical nature of Venn diagrams.

Quantum waves have interference patters, as do RF waves and AC signal streams along copper cables. They don't respect Venn diagrams, instead, the obey Bell's theorem; they are non-local and exhibit counterfactual definiteness behavior.

What I am getting at is that quantum behavior is not as far removed from us as we think. It is not as fragile to room temperature conditions as we thought.

I guess a hard question would be this: If I can entangle individual electrons or ions, then separate them, why can't I do the same thing with a copper cable between two electronic devices? Solutions to the Schrodinger Equation suggest that quantum entanglement is instantaneous because a quantum wave actually spans the distance.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 31, 2010 @ 22:27 GMT
Dear Peter,

In all fairness, you are asking about Huygens Principle in the presence of relativistic observations. Locally, we see everything that Huygen and Fresnel see.

P: "So no matter how fast we go we'll always measure light locally at 'c'." I think this is true; this is where the rubber meets the road. Admittedly, waves are not exactly localized. But absorbing electrons are certainly more local then photons. When the election catches a photon, it determines that the photon was traveling at the speed of light by measuring its wavelength (momentum p = h/lamda) and its frequency (energy E = hf).

Electron experience of the photon is first hand experience; nothing more reliable then that.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 00:54 GMT
Balanced attraction and repulsion are key to stabilized and fundamental distance in space in conjuction with both unified and balanced inertia/gravity and space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy. This provides quantum gravity. Electromagnetism/light and gravity are key to distance in space. Think!

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 02:37 GMT

"Why do things have mass? This seemingly simple question baffled generations of scholars, but in 1964 a British physicist named Peter Higgs stumbled on an answer.

His handwritten notes described an invisible field that pervades the cosmos and gives mass to the building blocks of nature. Without it, life could not exist.

A tell-tale particle called the Higgs boson could prove the theory, but to produce it scientists would need to recreate the fiery conditions of the early universe.

Unwittingly, Higgs had sparked the greatest hunt in modern science. As scientists close in on the elusive prize, we stand to gain not only the secret of mass, but a door to hidden realms of the universe. Massive tells the story."

This is not my first encounter with the theory of the Higgs particle. In my opinion, it is scientific desperation. Another invisible 'cause' field to fill in for the unknown nature of cause. Another adhoc fix thrown into the mix. There will be no Higgs boson. It is not needed. What is needed is to get the nature of mass correct right from the start of theory. It is included at the start and all efforts to avoid explaining it just gets theoretical physics deeper into error so that lifting itself up with this theory of the Higgs particle cannot do anything more than sustain its error until empirical evidence comes through to dispel it.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 12:08 GMT
Good grief. "Force" is itself invisible, realized only in effects measured between mass points. We've been over this time and again. Consider the invisible field lines of magnetism, demonstrated by Faraday to follow a specific pattern in the way it affects iron filings on glass.

Einstein used the idea, which is _very well_ supported by the _empirical_ evidence you demand, to extend the concept that "no space is empty of field."

The origin of mass in the Higgs boson is not "ad hoc." It is well integrated into known principles of theory and experiment. Inertia and gravitation unified at extremely high energy would explain the basis of motion in our low-energy world. It may not be right, but it most certainly is not "desperate."

If you guys would just settle down and learn some fundamental physics, I think you would find it worth the effort.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 12:40 GMT
Here's non-mathematical explanation that may help one understand the relation between mass points and fields:

Prof. Miller

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 14:00 GMT
Of course force is invisible. There is a cause for effects. The nature of that cause will always remain unknown. We will never know anything more than its effects. The one original cause is properly referred to as invisible. It is the practice of adding on other invisible pretenders to fill in the holes where theoretical physics fails to show how the original invisible force causes all effects.

James

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 09:59 GMT
James / Jason

I understand being able to 'invent' new fields at will stems from Lagrange, but IMO a consequence of denial of the unified field including the em wave medium. Once we allow the real field the massive boson is superfluous. It's also been said the longer the search goes on the less chance of success. I agree with you entirely James.

Jason. Sorry I lost this thread. Well done with; "This is where the rubber meets the road." Never a more apt comment, as this is the frame transition point. Length contraction occurs if a car tries to transition too rapidly, i.e. unto a concrete wall at rest with the road. This is no joke, this is the same process as your photon string!

You said; "When the election catches a photon, it determines that the photon was traveling at the speed of light by measuring its wavelength (momentum p = h/lamda) and its frequency (energy E = hf). Yes, but no. In fact if the electrons are in motion relative to the 'arrival medium' of the photon it will NOT arrive at 'c'!. (frame transition). But the electron doesn't give a damn about arrival rate, after a tiny dealy (PMD = refraction element 1) it sends them on at 'c' wrt itself. (refraction element 2).

Sorry, you'll need your brain in low gear and at full power to absorb that lot!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 18:54 GMT
Hi Peter, everyone,

It's good that pushing your mind and trying to understand these things. I still think that everything in physics can be decomposed into wave-functions and photons.

I've been spending the last several days blogging at the PhysForum.com website. My account has been suspended for 3 weeks. I was trying to explain my derivation of the shift photon equation, F = \frac{h\Delta f}{c \Delta t

$F = \frac{h\Delta f}{c \Delta t}$

and they were trying to tell me I was a religious crackpot; they we're trying to sell me on this Dunning-Kruger Effect which means that uneducated people can never come up with good ideas. So I told them that they had the Dunning-Kruger handbook shoved up their snobby intellectual (bleep). Well, that person turned out to be the website moderator. Anyway, I'm sick of snobby intellectual physicists who think that because they know a few equations that they can define spiritual and religious people as being stupid and not able to contribute.

Of course, I told them that the shift photon equation was inspired by a benevolent higher power. OK, yes, maybe I taunted them because they couldn't tear down the shift photon equation. I can derive it in two different ways. I also explained three different experiments that can be used to test it. I wanted to talk about physics, but they kept harassing me about what they called "religious bull****". Well you all know what I'm like. If you check the website, you can read the postings by Mazulu. I guess I taunted them really bad because they called me names like nitwit, idiot and ignorant, but they couldn't find anything wrong with the shift photon equation. I even pointed out to them that I was mixing Newtonian physics with QM. But the shift photon equation is just to get started on gravity beam research.

Anyway, I'm sick of intellectual snob physicists and will taunt them on site.

I'm also thinking about conducting an experiment using a white laser. A white laser is when you shine a spectrum of different frequencies along the same axis. If I can beam one frequency at a time in rapid succession, In principle, I should be able to generate a gravity beam..

Like I told them, I will happily explain the idea. However, insults will be responded to, rapidly and repeatedly. I turned both cheeks and they we're still very vicious. I'm all out of cheeks, but I have a stockpile of insults for those snobby orangutans.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 19:52 GMT
Jason

Those sites aren't meant to advance physics. They support disseminating current standard 'exam' banality to those learning, making the 'advisers' feel important. They'd be better off teaching the 'scientific method' rather than indoctrinating the young with other methods. I work with many professions and most physicists are like spiteful young children compared to the professionalism of most others.

You must remember there IS a place for giving students a solid basis for building on and demonstrating their learning ability. There are also plenty who really do know nothing and think they can solve the secrets of nature with imagination alone, so there is a place for regurgitating standard stuff at times. Where it all fails is in teachers not admitting we don't know if what we're teaching them is correct. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact it would be inspiring. Instead the poorer side of human nature is allowed to rule, the teacher not allowing the student into a position to gain better insight. Some more intelligent students may leave, disgusted, leaving mainly the 'parrot fashion' brigade in charge, propagating the same attitude.

And when someone bright tries to move the game on, there's a cacophony in his ears telling him he should learn what he already did learn and managed to rise above. Don't let them grind you down Jason. The future of the human race rests in the hands of those who can progress not those who try to drag them back.

Frankly most physicists would mark you down as a crackpot Jason. You should expect it, and perhaps better learn and speak their language as well as your own to put them at ease. But don't expect to change them. IMHO one of the strengths of humankind is our diversity.

And welcome back. I hope the essays, going well.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 20:22 GMT
Hi Peter,

I actually think I did sharpen my ability to communicate ideas. But they wouldn't listen to me. Well, yes I guess they are like "spiteful young children". Although they didn't get to see just how juvenile I could be. They suspended my account before I could say:

"na na na na na na!!!

The Shift photon equation is the key the theory of everything;

and it's inspired by a benevolent higher power,

na na na na na na!!! "

OK, I feel better now.

I'm going to look more carefully at using lasers as a way to implement my gravity beam. I'll use dominoes to prove that it works.

report post as inappropriate

Unified theorist wrote on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 16:57 GMT
Mach and Einstein sought the averaged smeared-out mass equivalency.

Inertial and gravitational equivalency makes space semi-detached from touch.

Half gravity and half inertia both make space semi-detached from touch.

This then represents a fundamental equivalency of what is larger and smaller space, as it represents equivalent and balanced attraction and repulsion in what is essentially the same space.

This then generally incorporates or demonstrates the quantum mechanical nature of space and energy (and it includes quantum gravity).

Unified theory in physics demands that a larger and smaller space both be represented as equivalent as well.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 19:00 GMT
Force is invisible and visible. This is the key to uniting gravity, electromagnetism, inertia, and quantum gravity.

Gravitational and electromagnetic space (electromagnetism) are both invisible and visible.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 19:25 GMT
Hey Frank,

There are a lot more readers over at PhysForum.com. You should go over there and tell them your ideas...

and if you do, bring a flak jacket.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 21:44 GMT
Proportionately increased/averaged inertia offsets/balances reduced/averaged gravity to establish an equivalent/same space that is also understood to be flattened/contracted and expanded/stretched. This gives us quantum gravity, equivalent attraction and repulsion, and the union of gravity/electromagnetism.

This is what Mach and Einstein wanted and needed.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 18:06 GMT
Mach and Einstein both sought an "averaged smeared out mass". This is exactly what I have shown. And, I only saw this written AFTER I came up with my ideas. There is no substitute for ability. My ideas now give you physicists the unified understanding of physics:

Balanced attrraction and repulsion.

Space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy (or force).

I explained the union of inertial mass and passive gravitational mass.Half gravity is equivalent with half inertia; it is that simple.

Einstein never showed a truly unifom gravitational field, as the Earth's gravitational field is NOT truly/actually uniform. Accordingly, you have to balance attraction and repulsion. I have. Therefore, there are no static solutions to Einstein's equations regarding all of space (the Universe) -- and Einstein knew this was then wrong -- because he could not successfully incorporate inertia in order to balance repulsion and attraction in order to establish a truly uniform gravitational field. I HAVE DONE ALL OF THIS, AND MORE.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 18:55 GMT
We can represent a smaller space as larger, and a larger space as smaller by increasing/AVERAGING inertia in conjunction with reducing/AVERAGING gravity.

This unifies gravity and electromagnetism, and it is ultimately essential in demonstrating quantum gravity as well.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 05:25 GMT
Frank,

There really is a way to unify gravity and electromagnetism. It's actually very simple.

A g-force can be 1g of gravity or 1g of vehicular acceleration. By the equivalence Principle, those are equivalent. But the effect of g-force can be measured as the degree of time dilation with respect to a reference frame with zero g-force (free fall or far away from a gravity source). The g-force is how much gravity or acceleration is experienced. Bottom line is this. The strength of the g-force is directly measured with time dilation, which is the duration of one second.

For electromagnetism or quantum mechanics, the energy of a photon is E=hf. The frequency f is measured in cycles per second.

As you would say, gravity is unified with electromagnetism. The essence of electromagnetism is the frequency of a photon in cycles per SECOND.

The essence of a gravity field is time dilation which directly impacts the duration of one SECOND. The essence of quantum mechanics and electromagnetism is the frequency off the photon in cycles per SECOND.

If you can connect time dilation to photon frequency, then you will unify gravity and QM.

Good luck with that.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 19:20 GMT
Jason

Very good. But equivalence is 2 way, so time dilation/gravity, needs inertial reference frames. Gravitational mass is inertial mass, so subject to motion, so subject to inertial frames (and transition, as there is no motion without a 2nd frame).

So; either 'c' is a constant and the 'time a second takes to pass' changes, or a second is a constant and light speed changes between reference frames to maintain c locally. You should find a beautiful logic using the second view, because it explains how 'c' can be constant between frames.

What we see (as Georgina has almost realised) is entirely dependant on observer frame. If we stay in any one frame we see speed change, if we change frames with the object we see time dilate/length contract. This can also be expressed as either f or lambda changing, and is completely equivalent to the reversed Poynting vector with co-motion in geometrical optics, and explains why the law of Refraction and Reflection fail with co-moving media. (another fact ignored by most physicists as it's so poorly understood and can't be explained within present paradigms) and why reflected light moves at the same speed as incident light wrt the 'medium' (even in a vacuum) not wrt the motion of the mirror.

None of this fully slots into place unless we apply the Discrete Field Model. But you've seen the video now so hopefully you can understand all the above?

If anyone else has any comments or questions do fire away.

There's some good discussion on the essay pages, also explaining why this is not falsified by Bells inequality.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 22:58 GMT
Hi Peter,

I had considered the invariance of the speed of light to be a result of the relationship,

$c=\lambda f$

Changing from inertial frame A to inertial frame B will change the frequency directly through time dilation. We could write that the change in photon energy is caused by a change in gravitational potential, E_B = hf_B = hf_A plus V_{GR}

$E_B = hf_B = hf_A + V_{GR}$

I hope you can read that. The math editor is acting funny.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 19:14 GMT
All ideas and understandings (including experience) are not visual only. This has thrown physics way off balance and off the full mark.

Tactile ideas, such as force, hardness, pressure, impact, and gravity matter. Accordingly, F=ma is central to any unified theory. Touch is fundamentally equivalent with gravity. That matters too.

F=ma ultimately demonstrates quantum gravity, as inertia and gravity/acceleration can be shown as equivalent (gravity, inertia, and acceleration all averaged) with/as force/energy. This fundamentally balances attraction and repulsion by generally averaging/controlling for motion/mobility, and it gives us the union of gravity and electromagnetism/light by combining and including opposites in a balanced and extensive/complete fashion.

(Einstein used the feeling of gravity in his theory/understanding.)

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 20:02 GMT
Great quote at the The Imagineer's Chronicles:

"Demonstrates one of the most powerful tools for developing a Unification Theory are ideas created by imagination. They enable one to extrapolate the properties of an observable universe to one that is unobservable."

Shows how dream experience is invisible and visible with thought and reality/physics ultimately combined and included as one.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 00:42 GMT
Dear James Putman,

Did my explanation of mass make any sense to you? I would happily explain it again. I am explaining it in terms of measurables, with atomic clocks (time dilation), and photon frequency which is a measurable as well.

I am happy to explain and defend these ideas.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 01:46 GMT
Dear Jason,

Whoah! I re-entered the arena at the correct moment. I don't see a bull but, I think you don't wan't to see any bull either. I had to look backward: Is this the description you are referring too?:

"Particles with mass are different. They are clusters of wave-functions with light trapped inside of them. The wave-function clusters prevents the light from traveling at c....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 02:08 GMT
Dear James,

That's too bad. I am, however, very glad that you can see the points that have fundamental disagreement on. I think that the invariance of c is pretty solid ground; although, it's looking as if even gravity can overpower it.

I decided to scrap the particle-wave duality idea; all photons are waves. If seen from far away, they're just really really small waves.

In quantum mechanics, they solve for the wave-function that describes the particle. There are lots of position and momentum states that the particle can be detected in. Wave functions can be added together. They look like complex exponentials with perturbation theory as well. Since complex wave-functions look like sinusoids (cos(x)+i sin(x)), and they can emit and absorb photons (which are sinusoids), I decided it was a safe bet to make everything in the universe made out of sinusoids. They only look like particles (point like objects) from far away.

Particles have energy. When combined with an antiparticle, both particles explode into gamma rays (photons) and the wave-functions add to zero.

You can chock it up to my bizarre logic, but to me, that is good enough to describe particles as: some wave-functions with photons trapped inside.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 02:33 GMT
Dear Jason,

"I think that the invariance of c is pretty solid ground..."

And I think that the local measurement of a constant C is on solid ground.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 01:31 GMT
I've been trying to write out the equations for motion of a particle of mass m subjected to the potential energy of a pulsed laser. The idea is to pulse red laser, than orange, yellow, green, blue, then violet. I have to figure out how to write this as a potential energy. I'll have to describe the laser energy using Kronecker deltas. This might take a while to work out.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 04:14 GMT
Time dilation between two points will certainly cause a frequency shift for a photon that transitions between those two points.

However, the opposite is not so clearly assured. If an electronics device generates a frequency shift, rapidly and repeatedly, using 7 or more different laser frequencies, the idea is to create a white laser gravity beam. Pulsing each laser frequency in rapid succession, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, red..., if done with careful attention to energy density, should create a slope or stairway with 7 energy steps. This is supposed to simulate a slope in energy. But will it generate either a time dilation field or a gravity field? I'm afraid this is not sufficient.

So what do I do? Do I abandon the quest for the gravity beam? Why would an ever changing frequency induce a gravity beam? Each frequency ramp, from f_0 to f_1 (linearly climbing), drops back to f_0 and climbs again, etc..., will this kind electromagnetic energy density cause anything to accelerate?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 10:49 GMT
James, Jason.

I think you're closer than you realise. I look forward to your essays.

James have you looked at the basic motion video yet?http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilati
on.htm

I'd like to offer two related points to hopefully 'join up' your thinking. Jason, the reason you say in one breath 'f can't change', then 'f changes', is the same reason there's confusion about 'local' constancy of 'c'. You keep grasping this momentarily then letting it slip. Now see if you can cling on to it;

What we observe wrt speed and frequency depends entirely on observer frame. See my essay and the strings. This is directly related to the 2nd point; Light has two entirely separate speed change components when it changes medium. This is well known in geometric optics but it's implications ignored (reversal of time averaged Poynting vector and failure of law of refraction).

The first is the PMD (Medium) Delay of n you've both grasped. The second is the relative motion of the media. You should be able to see this as you haven't been fitted with any of the blinkers formal physics training can bring. The really difficult bit is visualising the effects of both those two variable elements (including the 2nd as a 'couplet') in all combinations. The first also has internal variables to allow for, i.e. the observer frame change. It seems most human brains simply haven't developed adequately in the way required to do that. You appear ahead of most, but with more careful mental dexterity needed. It really does need moving pictures, even for the basics!

So essentially, you should find a variable speed of light theory IS a constant speed of light theory when viewed from with the frame the light is travelling within, including changing frame when the light does. Wavelengths are 'stretched' as well as compressed, (or frequency subject to observer frame) always maintaining E = f*lambda. That is the Discrete Field Model. I do hope that helps.

I wish you luck.

Do give me any thoughts, (including any formally trained physicists)

Peter

PS. Jason, yes, I think you ought to put aside the quest for a gravibeam till you've done more research. The levitating frogs are worth checking out.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 01:24 GMT
Peter,

"James have you looked at the basic motion video yet?http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilati
on.htm"

No I haven't. What does it communicate?

Jason and I are theoretically very far apart. He relies upon the basics of current theoretical physics. Current theoretical physics looks for unity at the early stages of the Big Bang, but, forces it to be in agreement with the fundamental disunity of theoretical speculations historically embeded into today's theory. I think that your approach also relies upon current theory. I get the impression that you are proposing a partial correction. My approach requires changing almost everything about theoretical physics. The work to support this statement is available at my website.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 10:39 GMT
Dear Peter and James,

I know why relativity is so hard to understand. You might have to think about my explanation.

Mass can accelerate and decelerate. Photons cannot accelerate or decelerate; photons only travel at c, in a vacuum. When two rockets look at each other, where one is moving v=0.8c, and the other is moving very slow, photons travel back and forth. We start doing time dilation calculations and Lorentz transforms. Photons would accelerate and decelerate between the two frames, except they are obligated to travel at c. So what do they do? They frequency shift. Frequency is in cycles per second.

Time dilation changes the duration of a second, --->

which changes the frequency of the photon, --->

which changes the energy of the photon --->

which implies that the photon has undergone either work or a change in gravitational potential.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 15:50 GMT
James

The video shows time dilation, length contraction, Frame transformation, Doppler shift, lensing delay, and re-normalisation, all in one simple mechanism in a 1.5 minute clip. It just uses the implications of the known physics of the elephant in the room current physics has missed.

But you'll need to focus very carefully and think very dexterously to make it appear.

M87 JETS

This is just the closest of around 100 Superluminal jet sources. (see the ref's on my essay). It's a fast rotating super-massive black hole (consuming the biggest of 3 giant elipticals at the centre of the Virgo cluster, only 60m lt.yrs away).

The magnetic field is contorted into tubes at it's poles and the matter being sucked in and ionised is ejected 'up the tubes' at fantastic energies. Each solar system is spat out in a plasma stream. But it eats them by the dozen, and each bit of the stream does C in the inertial frame it's ejected into, which is that of the stream in front, which slowly slows and spreads out, and on and on in tubular 'Incentric' (see the essay notes) motion. Tubes within tubes within tubes. This is just like a river, where the centre only does 0.5mph wrt the bit around it but 7mph wrt the bank.

Nothing moves faster than C locally. Things can only after all travel 'locally' anyway!

Either that or believe current science, write it off as an optical illusion and pass the exams.

I'm interested which one of those you'd go for.

Your understanding that I meant; "that the variation of the speed of light would allow objects to move faster." is wholly incorrect. When moving between inertial frames travelling at relative speed V, light must change speed by V to stay at C. This is nothing like current physics. It does however meet the SR postulates and remove all the problems of current physics.

Although as this particular elephant seems invisible it may never be seen, though one might expect someone to to realise all the dung that's been around so long must have come from somewhere!

Did the explanation work for you? And do let me know if the elephant appears!

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 17:41 GMT
Hi Peter,

P: "PS. Jason, yes, I think you ought to put aside the quest for a gravibeam till you've done more research. The levitating frogs are worth checking out. "

Actually, I disagree. I've been looking at the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics as well as the laws of motion. For a particle of mass m, its kinetic energy is T=1/2mv^2. For the force, I am trying to understand things like spectral energy density. I have to figure out a way to write the potential energy expression. I'm starting with Digital Signal Processing. Basically, I have a repeating frequency ramp, f(t) = f*\frac{t}{t_0}

$f(t) = f*\frac{t}{t_0}$

I have to write this in terms of a potential energy expression. In some ways it looks very promising. In other ways, I'm not sure the math can keep up.

I want to start buying some 100mW lasers online. I guess lasers are my new hobby. The first step is to align all the laser optics in a container of some kind. I'll worry about the electronics later.

I don't know if anyone has tried this before. I'm aiming for a gravity beam. I might only get a fancy bug zapper or even a disintegration ray. I figure it's very unlikely that I will inadvertently open a doorway to the fifth dimension and get devoured by monsters.

There really is no reason not to pursue this. The mathematical physics is unfinished, but suggestive; but the idea itself is really interesting.

P.S. As photons transition from inertial frame A to B, time dilation changes the frequency; index of refraction changes the speed of light, c_n = c/n.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 19:27 GMT
Jason.

"As photons transition from inertial frame A to B, time dilation changes the frequency; index of refraction changes the speed of light, c_n = c/n."

That's the point I'm making, you have most of the creatures but you're missing two enormous 'elephants in the room'. Firstly; It's that 'speed of light change' that dilates (or stretches) the waves, i.e. 'time'.

But importantly; Your analysis only works if the frames are going at the same speed! There are TWO, seperate, factors affecting speed when observed from a fixed reference frame. The second one is that the relative 'V' between frames ALSO changes it's speed from your viewpoint.

I think this is simply beyond most brains to hold that and manipulate it with the other factors. You keep getting it momentarily then forgetting it again! Can you see it again now?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 22:54 GMT
Peter,

Time dilation comes with g-force. We experience a 1g g-force all our lives from gravity. Occasionally, we experience it from accelerating and decelerating our cars. If a speeding car flies by a police car traveling 0.8c, the cop would have observed,

1. the blue-shift from the approaching speeding car,

2. the relativistic time dilation/transverse doppler shift,

3. the redshift of the car as it travels away from the police car.

There are many photons that traveled from the speeding car to the police cars radar detector. Each one experienced a slightly different time dilation. Yet all of those photons had to transition from the speeder's car to the cop's radar detector; in effect, every one of those photons had to undergo a time dilation/frequency shift just to transition between inertial frames.

Likewise, when the police car has to accelerate to match the velocity of the speeder, it will have to incur a time dilation associated with acceleration.

I'm trying to find the best way to think about it and understand it. It takes time. It's not beyond our ability to understand. It's just far removed from our normal pattern of thinking.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 22:58 GMT
BTW, you said,

"Firstly; It's that 'speed of light change' that dilates (or stretches) the waves, i.e. 'time'.But importantly; Your analysis only works if the frames are going at the same speed! There are TWO, seperate, factors affecting speed when observed from a fixed reference frame. The second one is that the relative 'V' between frames ALSO changes it's speed from your viewpoint."

You have to accept that the speed of light is an invariant. When the photon transitions between inertial frames, it undergoes time dilation and frequency shift. The speed of light only slows down due to c/n.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 00:58 GMT
Electromagnetism and gravity both need to be represented as invisible and visible space in conjunction with equivalent/balanced attraction and repulsion in order to unify them and to attain gravitational and inertial equivalency. This gives us quantum gravity too.

Gravity is key to distance in/of space. Gravity is visible and invisible as space. Inertia is key to distance in/of space, and electromagnetism/light is also key to distance in/of space. Half strength/force inertia and half strength/force gravity demonstrate equivalent force/energy (strength) in keeping with equivalent distance in/of space as well.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 15:15 GMT
Jason

I know what it is. There's a spot in the centre of our eye where the nerves gather together, so we can't see anything if we look directly at it. It seems the same for all humans. There's a giant elephant in front of you, and you're looking straight through it.

Consider the policeman, in his car, holding his radar gun. If he was parked, Would the em wave radar signal give him the same reading as when he was doing 50mph? ...Think carefully.

The answer is NO, because the frequency has changed, BECAUSE his car, he, and his gun are moving at v. WHICH ONLY WORKS because light is doing the constant C within and WITH RESPECT TO his car and gun.

From your frame, observing beside the road, you will see that to do that it has changed speed from your own C to the C of the cars inertial frame (the speed the postulates of SR say it must do - within each frame.)

We know anyway it has to do that because when it goes through the glass windscreen (and gun lens) it travels at c/1.502 (n for crown glass). That is always wrt the glass, not anywhere else it may or may not have been or fancies visiting! It then it changes speed to c/1.003 wrt the gas inside the car (hopefully air).

The Doppler shift is evidence of the speed change, (just like it was with the car the beam bounced off). When light bounces off a moving mirror it remains at C wrt the air NOT the mirror!

So if you took a video of the car as it went past, from a fixed camera, and could see the photons, you would see them doing less than 'c', by both the V of the car AND the c/n of air. (the light entering the camera also does c/n).

Is that elusive elephant starting to appear in front of you yet?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 18:50 GMT
Hi Peter,

The elusive elephant of different speeds of light isn't necessary. Yes, the index of refraction c/n (1.5 for crown glass) will slow the speed of light down. I heard about a gravity effect that slows light down but I'm ignoring that. The Sagnac effect is calculated with c+v, but I'm not an expert on it, so I'm ignoring it. M87 spewed forth a ray of energy clocked at 6c, but it's 100 millions away and hard to verify, so I'm not worried about it right now.

Beyond these exceptions, I can relax in the comfort that the speed of light is observed to be the same for all observers. All that changes is the frequency (time dilation) and wave-length (in response to frequency or due to index of refraction).

If you're arguing that photons riding the bus will win the race against photons that are walking; is that what you're arguing?

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 19:37 GMT
I agree with Jason,

The speed of light is the speed of light regardless of the relative motions of the Source and the Observer (relativistic Doppler shift accounts for any relative motion). If you really think that you are observing a speed faster than the speed of light in vacuum, then you need to consider the possibilty of tachyons, Higgs, Gravitons or such traveling faster than c.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 19:54 GMT
Hi Ray,

I just ordered my second laser from Wicked Lasers in China. It's 100mW. Yes, I ordered the goggles. The green pen laser I have is 50mW and pretty darn bright. Eventually I'll need all the colors. However, orange and yellow lasers cost 3 to $4000. I'm not sure if that's even feasible. I'll have to figure out how to pulse each frequency at about 30 to 40 nanoseconds. I'm aiming for a gravity beam. It might only be a fancy bug zapper. Or, I might punch through space-time into hyper-space and get gobbled up by a hyperspace monster. On a serious note, I'm trying to calculate the potential energy component of a frequency ramp moving at the speed of light. I need this to calculate the Hamiltonian and Lagrange. I need about another 100 IQ points. report post as inappropriate Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 18:39 GMT Matter and energy are quantum mechanical in nature, so a larger and smaller space must be combined (and included) in order to unite inertia and gravity with/as force/energy having equivalent and stabilized distance in/of space. It is critical to demonstrate how a larger space is made smaller, and equivalently, how a smaller space is made larger. F=ma can represent an increase in force/energy (of one fourth) in relation to distance in/of space if inertia is proportional to gravity/acceleration. The equivalent force/energy relation of inertia and gravity as they relate to (and give) distance in/of space is one half. When space is both larger and smaller by one fourth, it is increased by one half. F=ma demonstrates the fundamental equivalency of inertia and gravity/acceleration as each relates (equivalently) to/with distance in/of space as one half. Half gravity and half inertia give us the middle distance in/of space. The known mathematical union of gravity and electromagnetism in a fourth dimension of space indicates a space that is equally expanded and contracted by one half. Since combining and including opposites is key, space that is both larger and smaller (by one fourth -- as the "difference") is equivalent to "combined" space that is equally expanded and contracted by/at/as one half. report post as inappropriate Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 23:22 GMT James/Ray I think James has seen it - the elephant in the room. Ray you only have to read my essay.(and the 5 papers!). 'Local' is within each discrete inertial field. M87 is no illusion, and nothing is travelling faster than 'c' WHERE it is travelling. i.e. Locally. And if we see a light pulse flashing up a fluorescent tube on a bus as it goes past us, all we see is the 'SCATTERED' photons emitted by the gas particles as the em energy goes through it at 'c' locally IN THE TUBE. Nothing has to breach 'c' ANYWHERE for us to see the 'rate of change of position' as apparently more than 'c'. Mind that invisible elephant in front of you! My 2009 paper predicted 'lensing' delays of over 10 years from high redshift galaxies. Over 3 years was recently found, to astronomers shock and horror. Jason, you need to find and employ those extra 100 before you put finger to keyboard! You glimpsed it with your photon string, now you've totally lost it again - and to think I cited you in the essay! Hope you grasp it again. But congratulations James. If we can get 100 to see the elephant we might even save the human race from being buried by it's dung! Peter report post as inappropriate James Putnam replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 00:23 GMT Peter, I haven't seen any elephants in any rooms. What I do see are direct answers to direct questions. James report post as inappropriate Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 11:42 GMT James Same thing. The battle is in seeing it in the first place, which takes some 'computing' power. As you now know, once you've seen it all the rest falls into place. There are simply too many variables for the mind to easily manipulate at once (as the current discussion in the essay strings). You should be aware the concept isn't new. Sir George Stokes found it in the mid 18th century, (with Fresnel, Heaviside etc and support from Max Planck) with 'Full Ether Drag'. But Lorentz and others just couldn't see it. A bit like most here, where I've been trying to explain it for 2 years! The history of how Stokes was overridden is covered in one of my papers, the 4th I think; http://wbabin.net/weuro/jackson.pdf All new 'takes' on it (and there's potential for dozens of fresh ones) are valid, welcome and indeed essential, but must of course cite the history, though it's a 'eureka' moment for all who find it, and each will have their own personal subjective view of it. However, it's always been simply reducible to "light changes speed to maintain local 'c' at frame transition". It should stand a real change of paradigm shift as it does not have to reject the postulates of SR, just 'explain' them better. I've posted my other papers on it before, but for your interest and records the first 3 were; http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0047 http://vixra.org/abs/0912.0041 http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010 and last years essay; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/495 Best of luck. And if I can be of any more help I'm very happy to collaborate. Peter report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 21:08 GMT Hi Peter, As I develop the concept of the white laser as a means to a gravity beam, I realized something. Photons carry momentum. Who can dispute this? But if I use 6 different lasers: red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet, AND I shift to the next frequency every picosecond, then I should be inducing a force $F =\frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t}$ Depending upon whether I go red to violet, or violet to red, I can control the sign of Delta p (change in momentum). If I integrate over the duration of the frequency shift, $p = \int Fdt = \int \frac{\Delta p}{\Delta t}dt$ Then I should be able to increase or decrease the momentum, and even make it a negative momentum. Does this make sense? report post as inappropriate Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 18:46 GMT Celestial and terestrial gravity are only fundamentally and truly unified at bottom by inertial and gravitational equivalency. This generally controls for motion and averages acceleration in keeping with half gravity and half inertia. This gives us quantum gravity as well, as space is contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded on balance. Accordingly, a larger space is represented as smaller, and a smaller space is represented as larger. report post as inappropriate Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 22:07 GMT This has all been demonstrated in/as dream experience. Distance in/of space is ultimately and equivalently demonstrated (and stabilized) by the union/equivalency of half strength gravity and half strength inertia. This semi-detaches space from touch. report post as inappropriate Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 15, 2011 @ 19:12 GMT Quantum gravity requires that a smaller space be made larger and that a larger space be made smaller. This makes space flattened/contracted and stretched/expanded (on balance). The only way to do this is by inertial and gravitational force/strength equivalency (at half/middle/average strength). This estabishes space in/as the middle distance in keeping therewith. This gives us force/energy that is equivalently expressed as/with distance in/of space, and it includes position in/of space relative to distance in/of space. report post as inappropriate Anonymous replied on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 01:39 GMT Worthless trash. Total waste of blog space. report post as inappropriate Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 18:17 GMT Inertia and gravity may be unified -- and a smaller space made larger, and a larger space made smaller -- if we are semi-weightless/semi-mobile. This makes space manifest in/as the middle distance in/of space in conjunction with half gravity and half inertia. Gravity attaches space, and inertia detaches space. Accordingly, space is then semi-detached from touch, as it manifests in/as the middle distance in/of space in conjunction with half gravity and half inertia, and space is contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in keeping therewith. A smaller space is then made larger, and a larger space is then made smaller. This gives us quantum gravity and balanced/equivalent attraction and repulsion in keeping with equivalent/balanced inertia and gravity, as this all relates to/involves the middle distance in/of space. report post as inappropriate Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 20:05 GMT Force is a combination of mass and length. The key is to show mass and length as equivalent. To do this, we need to show inertia as equivalent with gravity first. If inertia and gravity are equivalent, then distance in space/length is consistent with balanced attraction and repulsion. If inertia is at half strength, and gravity is at half strength, then distance is in the half/middle distance as well. F=ma then represents inertia and gravity/acceleration equivalently in conjunction with quantum gravity. The problem with modern physics is that there is no basic and fundamental frame of reference (centered distance in/of space) that demonstrates force and energy as fundamental and equivalent. Distance in/of space must reflect force/energy strength and inertial/gravitational unification. report post as inappropriate Anonymous replied on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 20:28 GMT You don't know any physics. You are a fraud and a fake. Your ideas are worthless trash. report post as inappropriate Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 21:00 GMT If inertia and gravity are equivalent (both at half strength/force), then distance in space/length is consistent with balanced/equivalent attraction and repulsion, and also with the half/middle strength of both inertia and gravity. Accordingly, space then manifests in/as the middle distance in/of space in conjunction with (and as) quantum gravity. Therefore, F=ma then fundamentally represents motion/mobility that is generally averaged (or controlled for). Accordingly, inertia is then at the same force/energy strength as gravity, thereby providing generally balanced, fundamental, and stabilized distance in/of space in conjunction with generally balanced attraction and repulsion. F=ma fundamentally and ultimately represents essentially or fundamentally constant force (or energy) in conjunction with generally balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity/acceleration. When you look down at the ground/feet while standing upright, that is gravitational space; and, importantly, this pertains to distance in/of space as it involves full gravity (both invisible and visible). Gravity is key to distance in/of space, and there is no getting around this. Space is semi-visible/semi-invisible in dreams, as it is gravitationally averaged in relation to/with vision. Combining and including opposites is key, as vision begins invisibly and ends visibly in conjunction with the range/experience of gravitational space and feeling (while standing upright and looking directly downward). Space is invisible and visible in/as dream experience. It is that simple. Therefore, the person having, or remembering, the dream sees it; but nobody else sees it. Importantly, vision begins transparently/invisibly inside the body and eye in keeping with the [relatively] reduced feeling that is experienced at the top of the body. Vision then ends (with visible space) at the earth/feet in the progression/inctrease involving both gravitational feeling and distance in space. report post as inappropriate Anonymous replied on Jan. 17, 2011 @ 05:28 GMT Frank, You're a total bullS*** artist. Nobody reads your trash. You contribute NOTHING. report post as inappropriate Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 18, 2011 @ 20:49 GMT If inertia and gravity were at identical (half) strength, then space would be attached and detached with equivalent/balanced force/energy. Inertia (as in the experience of outer space) detaches space, and [full] gravity attaches space. (Inertia and gravity are key to distance in/of space.) Half/MIDDLE gravity and half/MIDDLE inertia would make space semi-detached from touch (in both instances, that is), as it would establish an equivalent space -- as (and in) the MIDDLE distance in/of space -- in conjunction with this equivalent and fundamental force/energy (at half/MIDDLE strength). To achieve/have a fundamental union between force/energy (inertia, gravity/acceleration, repulsion, attraction) as it is equivalently expressed as length/distance in/of space is the deepest unification that is generally possible in physics. report post as inappropriate Anonymous replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 01:09 GMT Frank, You seem to lack the ability to engage in conversation of any sort. You are boring. report post as inappropriate Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 20:55 GMT F=ma (Force = [inertial] mass multiplies times acceleration) can be represented quantum mechanically, as inertia/resistance to acceleration is fundamentally equivalent with gravity/acceleration when gravity and inertia are both at half strength. (Matter and energy are known to be quantum mechanical in origin.) Gravity attaches space, and inertia detaches space. Accordingly, space is contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in conjunction with quantum gravity and balanced/equivalent attraction and repulsion. This explains the fundamentally quantum mechanical nature of matter and energy in keeping with making a larger space smaller and (equivalently) making a smaller space larger. Space that is semi-detached from touch (in conjunction with BOTH half gravity and half inertia) is understood to be in/at the same (middle) distance in/of space, in keeping with the middle (half) force strength gravity and inertia. This gives us space manifesting as/with variable manifestations of what is essentially the same (and constant) electromagnetic/gravitational energy. Mass/energy/force (middle gravity and middle inertia) is equivalently expressed as (middle) length/distance in/of space. This is the most fundamental unification in all of physics, and all of this takes place in/as dream experience. Inertia and gravity are key to distance in/of space. report post as inappropriate Anonymous replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 04:51 GMT Frank, You don't discuss ideas. You just repeat the same garbage like a parrot. Your ideas are not even wrong, they're just words strung together meaninglessly. report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 20:17 GMT Free fall is an inertial frame that is undergoing coordinate acceleration. When we stand on the ground, we are in a non-inertial reference frame that is subject to 1g of g-force, but no coordinate acceleration. If I'm at the stop light in my truck, the light turns green, and I floor it, I can get maybe 1.5g of g-force AND coordinate acceleration. Does anyone wish to correct my usage of these words? report post as inappropriate Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 10:09 GMT Jason Brilliant! (Tom - don't read the below if you don't want your beliefs shaken). Jason. Your prize is this - which should avoid you wasting hard earned dollars. http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/37860 They say your view depend on what paper you read. More ought to read CERN courier. I don't actually agree with your terms, but once you know what to look for it'll be easily easily found. As a bonus, dragged up deep from the archives, one I'll also pass to Eckard; http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28606 I think these should help considerably in stopping you wandering around too far off track (searching for that elephant). Best wishes Peter report post as inappropriate T H Ray wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 12:07 GMT Quoting Popper quoting E.M. Forster, I don't believe in belief. If you think anything going on at CERN contradicts relativity, however, you don't understand the research. In fact, showing that the equivalence principle is tractable to quantum scale measure is sine qua non to a coherent theory of quantum gravity, and actually assumes the truth of general relativity. And superluminal communication is already enshrined in quantum mechanics as nonlocality; testing the extent to which this principle intersects with principles of relativity is also a path to unification of the theories. Point is, as I've been telling you guys all along, contemporary experimental research programs are tied to known physics, not to new theories. Understand the old theories, and their results, if you want to make new ones. That's how the theorists at CERN do it. That's how Einstein did it. And that's how science is done. One does not simply draw conclusions from data, no matter how it seems to fit into one's belief system. Examine your own, not mine. Tom report post as inappropriate John Merryman wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 17:22 GMT Tom, "One does not simply draw conclusions from data, no matter how it seems to fit into one's belief system." Someone has to, because that's where theories come from. The problems start when we draw conclusions from theories. That's when belief systems take over. report post as inappropriate T H Ray replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 21:11 GMT Theories can come from anywhere. Conclusions, however, never come from data. Tom report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 21:19 GMT What do we do with theories and conclusions? I use them to anticipate what kind of phenomena nature might permit. For example, the tractor beam/gravity beam. What do you do with theories and conclusions? report post as inappropriate John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 01:54 GMT Tom, "Theories can come from anywhere." Like the imagination? "Conclusions, however, never come from data." Where do conclusions come from? and what is it that we draw from data? I guess the question is as to what are conclusions and beliefs. I would tend to describe a conclusion as something having a better than average possibility of having happened, while a belief would be that I think the odds are overwhelming, but still lack conclusive proof. If the data is a set of footprints in the snow, my conclusion would be that someone was walking in that direction. If I fully accept someone had walked in that direction, it would be a belief. The conclusions we draw are not always correct, nor are the theories, or beliefs. report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 20:11 GMT Peter, OK, they need no less then six pulse lasers across a range of frequencies. I like: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet. They pulse these frequencies in order, rapidly and repeatedly. The idea is to synthesize "shift photons" (or whatever you prefer to call them). Shift photons carry momentum by virtue of the rapid pulsing. If you change the order of frequencies pulsed to: violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, red, then you change the sign of the momentum carried by each shift photon. I'm trying to work out the math this weekend. When the breakthrough is made, tractor beams and shift photon propulsion will become possible. This is all assuming the correctness of GR and QM; which is a correct assumption. If there are any slight deviations of the correctness of GR and QM, they are irrelevant to the development of the tractor beam. Yes, I know this sounds like some kind of Star Trek fantasy, but I'm just an electronics technician. I'm trying to articulate the mathematical foundation of shift photons using Hamiltonian Mechanics. It's like creating a series of frequency wedges that mirror an equivalent gravitational potential wedge; these wedges move and bombard their target at the speed of light. We're so close to a historic technological breakthrough in propulsion technology. Will we do it in the next ten years? Or the next ten thousand years? report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 20:41 GMT Peter, I read the second link. What is being argued here is that gravity can cause photons to travel superluminally. Huh. Wow. Causal events are allowed to look like they are non-causal. For example, traveling superluminally, you could see the meteor impact, and then (out of causal order) see the meteor plummeting towards earth. But one is never afforded the opportunity to change the past. That is what I'm saying. As for photons being caused to travel superluminally by gravity, I'll go along with that. I don't know if you read my response to your critique of my paper. Thank you, by the way. I postulated that the global speed of light, as distinct from local, might be set by the presence of a significant source of gravity. The M87 hurled a huge amount of mass-energy into space. That mass energy has its own gravitational field. The gravity field sets the speed of light relative to the gravity field. In other words, debris from M87 is allowed to travel faster than the speed of light because the debris is a source of gravity and sets the speed of light relative to the gravitational source's center of mass. I'm not sure how this squares with conservation of energy or time dilation. It won't let you change the past. Normally, gravity causes time to slow down as one goes deeper into the gravity well. That might be how nature prevents causality violations. report post as inappropriate Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 13:39 GMT Jason You have it right here, except why the 'Gobal'?; I postulated that the global speed of light, as distinct from local, might be set by the presence of a significant source of gravity. The M87 hurled a huge amount of mass-energy into space. That mass energy has its own gravitational field. The gravity field sets the speed of light relative to the gravity field. In other words, debris from M87 is allowed to travel faster than the speed of light because the debris is a source of gravity and sets the speed of light relative to the gravitational source's center of mass. Because what you describe is 'local' to the mass, as is a gravitational field. In fact it's not the 'gravity' itself that's causing it, remember there's also em field, ionosphere, plasmasphere, all in the same inertial frame, so light does 'c' with respect to each. And never forget that Observer Frame is crucial! Light can't do any speed at all except relative to something else - nothing can. Observers can be moving on infinitely many vectors (i.e. in infinitely many other inertial frames) Now you have to study atomic scattering to find the rest of the picture. But don't forget the principle as it applies to ALL mass, and I really do mean ALL! why should the laws of physics vary and some bits be special and some not. You did have it once before and it slipped away again. You have a big advantage over most as you're less wedded to the 100 year old physics than them, which makes it impossible to see. I'll read your response when I get a mo. I'm desperately trying to finish a peper. And now i'm going to sound crazier than you!.. don't worry about being too Star Treck, as it turns out every bit of us all has already done the 'beam me up' bit at least once - I'll explain once it's submitted. You'll love it. Yes, change is on the way. You're looking for the physics of ten years time, not just 100 years back. In ten years time your physics is what we'll be needing, not to be just looking back yet another ten years. Peter report post as inappropriate T H Ray replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 15:54 GMT An open system does not obviate closed judgments of fact. Tom report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 18:03 GMT Peter, Strike "global speed of light"; it didn't sound right. You stll have a local invariance of the speed of light such that frequency and wavelength will change and accommodate for transitions between inertial frames. A change in frequency f is a consequence of time dilation, be it gravitational, relativistic or rotation. The only way that I can see that the speed of light from point A could be different from point B is relative to a gravitationally significant object. M87 jets can reach velocities of 7c, relative to the black hole, because the jets themselves are gravitationally significant. The local speed of light is relative to the gravity field of the jet. I'm just not convinced that a particle can reset the local speed of light through absorption and emission. report post as inappropriate John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 19:12 GMT Tom, It is a closed judgement of fact that the sun moves across the sky from east to west. We can certainly understand today that it is actually the earth rotating west to east, but if you tried to explain that to someone a thousand years ago, they would look at you as if you had two heads. Currently we have Relativity and QM. While they both qualify as closed judgements of fact, it seems evident there is some underlaying reality which is not clearly evident, much as the earth rotating relative to the sun is not clearly evident to someone standing on it. report post as inappropriate Anonymous wrote on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 19:41 GMT http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/805509#ans10278578 report post as inappropriate Anonymous wrote on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 19:50 GMT Einstein's conception of gravity cannot fundamentally account for gravitational and inertial equivalency/balancing, and it cannot demonstrate balanced attraction and repulsion in conjunction with unifying gravity and electromagnetic phenomena/energy generally. Indeed, the origin of matter and energy is quantum mechanical, so Einstein's theory of gravity ultimately fails on all of these counts taken together. Read more: Is it only a consequence that gravity is a special force not based on the fact that space-time is not flat that differentiates Einsteins special theory of relativity from general relativity? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/805509#ixzz1D7F5LUow report post as inappropriate Bubba wrote on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 23:04 GMT Theories are not absolulte truths. The only thing we can say at the present time is that we have no observations which contradict the theory of General Relativity. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is a lot of conceptual confusion surrounding General Relativity, even among some professional physicists. Here are some of the myths that get propogated, especially in pop-sci... view entire post report post as inappropriate James A Putnam replied on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 23:19 GMT "In a nutshell, the distribution of mass-energy defines the local metric, which in turn defines the local geometric properties of spacetime. There is no preferred or absolute geometry to physical existence." This looks preferred to me. Put the mathematics forward and decline to explain what the mathematics is modeling. Is your point that mathematics is enough to describe reality, and, that attributing a physical nature to the properties described by the mathematics is improper physics? James report post as inappropriate Anonymous replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 00:43 GMT I didn't put any mathematics forward. I was just musing on how the Theory of Relativity often gets put through a meat grinder. Edcuators and the media often serve up ground chuck to their audiences. The kind of inquiry you are engaging in is more sutiable for philosophy than physics. No matter how well-reasoned the arguments, the result is always going to be a matter of opinion.You want answers for absolutes. Science is not about opinions or establishing absolute truths--at least it's not supposed to be. I am not stating that the questions you bring up are not important, but they are not practical. You don't need a blueprint of reality to do physics. If we did, science would never have went anywhere. A chemist doesn't spend time wondering if the beaker is half-empty or half-full. The Chemist is only concerned with what's in the beaker, how much it weighs and what are it's properties. The mathematics is modeling our observations of how mass-energy behaves under certain circumstances. Physical theories describe how nature behaves. General relaitivty is a theoretical description for the observed phenomenon of gravity. Some day, a more general theoretical description for the phenomenon may come along. However, that doesn't mean GR would be false anymore than Newton's Law of gravitation is considered false in light of the advancement of GR. Both would be considered descriptions of nature that are limiting values of a more general theory. Any future theory must reduce to Newtonian Gravitation and GR because both are indeed accurate in describing the behavior of nature. We got to the moon and back using the inverse square law. report post as inappropriate James A Putnam replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 01:05 GMT "I am not stating that the questions you bring up are not important, but they are not practical." Yet you refer to mass-energy. What is its effect on what real properties? No you did not put mathematics forward, but, you relied upon it for your support. So relativity theory is saved by hiding in the foggy swamp of the complexity of the innumerable unpreferred frames? Is there space or is there not space? Does space exist independent of theory? While it is certainly the case that theoretical physics cannot describe that which their data does not address, still, we make distance measurements in space so we know it is not nothing. We know that it is what we move around in. Physics data is about moving around. So, a metric applies only to movement. There is so much more than just movement. There is space, time, life, and intelligence. With regard to being practical, the patterns in changes of velocity are real. Those patterns tell us that four properties exist. They are: space; time; force; and, resistance to force. We cannot know any one of these firsthand. Firsthand involves only the patterns in changes of velocity. Yet those patterns tell us everything mechanical that we will ever know about the universe. With regard to your mass-energy, mass is real, it is resistance to force. Energy is not mass and it is not a property. It is a sum total of the calculation of applying a force across a distance. I hear and read the retorts that certain questions should not be asked or that they are not practical or that they do not fit with the scientific method. My response is that something about science needs fixed. James report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 02:03 GMT Hey Bubba, I bought this book called Exploring Black Holes, an Introduction to General Relativity. It was recommended by the bloggers at PhysForum.com. Equation [1] is, tau^2= t^2 + s^2, where tau is the "wristwatch" time (a.k.a.) proper time. Then in equation [2], they say that t(in meters) = ct_second. Maybe it's just me, but equation [1] just blows the units away which makes it a useless equation. I know physicists like to set the units to unity, but that just removes any flag that says: "Hey partner! You're units are wacky!" My point is that too much conceptual mathematics gets away from reality in the following way. How do you know whether or not you're adding apples and apples? You could be adding apples and applesauce or apples and oranges. report post as inappropriate Anonymous replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 03:40 GMT I guess if you don't know if you are adding apples or oranges, you need to pay more attention. Science is emperical and observation is the ultimate litmus test--not abstract reasoning. Mathematics is simply a tool. We may have reason and mathematics as a tool, but our observations and measurements have the final say on the validity of our theories. So far, there have been no observations which conflict with the Theory of Relativity. It currently stands as the best model we have to describe gravitation. We should drop the word 'reality' from the discussion. It's too easy to become mired down in semantics. Words alone are not sufficient to describe the operation of nature. Outside of mathematics, how else can you describe the physical model with sufficient detail for it to be of use? Mathematics is an integral pat of the process of theory-making in the phsyical sciences because it is the only language that can be used to describe nature in a meaningful way. If we want to make use of our observations to predict or explain, we need something more sublime. Science without mathematics is like a car without wheels. You won't go anywhere. Simply making observations and using words to describe these observations leads to some type of qualitative understanding but produces absolutely nothing of value. Newton didn't watch an apple fall and come up with the idea of Grvaity. Just stating, 'Objects attact' won't cut it. You can't arrive at Keplers Laws or the inverse square law with words. You need to introduce quantity and measure and be able to form relationships among these. To do this, there needs to exist a system of numbers and a rational system of deductive inference to form relationships between numbers. In order to be sure that you are producing results that are consistent, you need axioms and proofs. Gallileo took a clock and ruler and wrote down his measurements. He formed relationships among the measurements. He quantified change in a physical system and discovered general mathematical relations that appeared to hold true at all times and places. These relations still hold true today, even though our physical models are more refined, abstract, and precise. Whether it's General Relativity or Newtonian Grvaity, we are essentially given a set of equations with the understanding that, 'this is how nature behaves when observed.' We don't need to appeal to reason to prove or disprove either. Observation says whether or not the models hold true as an accurate description of how nature operates. The mathematics has become more abstract and complex but the process of doing science remains the same. Mathematics is the only language one can use to describe nature with sufficient precision to produce useful results. report post as inappropriate John Merryman wrote on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 04:08 GMT Bubba, Okay, let's try this one; "At time t=a, your position can be described by a set of local cordinates (a,x,y,z). In the absence of any outside forces, it then follows that at a future time t=b, your coordinates will be (b,x,y,z). Since the meric is Cartesian, the only chznge will be a time interval. x,y,z remain unchanged. In other words, a change in the coordinate t does not correspond to a change in coordinatesd x,y,z." x,y, and z do not change. Is it rational to consider they exist as the present? So the change is with t, not xyz, as b has replaced a. Thus as b arrives from the future, a recedes into the past? It would seem that in this model, the change is the future becoming the past, not the present, xyz, moving from past to future? The future is potential and the past is evidential, so it would seem future is cause and past is effect, since there is no way to know all potential prior to any occurrence and the intersection of that potential creates the event., which is then replaced and recedes into the past. So it's not that xyz move along the time coordinate, but that the collapse of potential progresses within the confines of xyz, ie. the present. If time is not a coordinate, what does that say about spacetime? report post as inappropriate Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 20:14 GMT Conservation of energy has become an obstruction to the shift photon concept. Does anyone object to attacking conservation of energy? After all, if energy cannot be created, then where did all this energy come from? Did God create it, or what? report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 22:44 GMT You cannot avoid the question: where did the energy of the Big Bang come from? Either: A: Energy of the Big Bang plus the gravitational (negative) energy add to zero; which preserves conservation of energy... or, B: God said: Let there be Light; which is equivalent to the Big Bang; ipso facto, the Holy Bible is correct, and God (the Christian God) created the universe. or, C: there exists some other explanation to explain where the energy of the Big Bang came from. Please explain it. Ignoring this post is equivalent to admitting either A or B. report post as inappropriate Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 18:35 GMT Hi Jason. Sorry, I object. Energy won't entirely go away. The answer to your last post is 'C'. In a way it seems Cosmic Ray is right and it's about scales. If you look at how stars are recycled, either by supernova or plasma jets via their tokamak (toroid) black holes (see Chandra IR Crab Nebula core photo), you can see a small version. Galactic quasars (super massive black holes up to 10^9 solar masses) are the mummy bear size. If we look closely the Universe looks very similar to the big grizzly daddy bear version. So this means we were almost certainly recycled from the universe that went before, just like galaxies are (paper going in tonight) by quasars. Google Centaurus A and find the action shot with the helical jet. i.e. just like smaller black holes, the big bang was powered by the waste matter from the universe that went before. (you heard it here first!) The fact the Milky Way has done it once already recently is how you've already done that Star Trek ionises and beam across space trick. But don't panic, we're not due again till after the sun burns out. ..Does that help? And re your question of a particle changing the sped of light; Just consider the flux of up to 10^13 particles/mm^-3 over 10 kiloparsecs thick, all oscillating it the new frequency it need to be to maintain 'c' in the new frame. Considering Cosmic Ray is transmitted by Stokes and anti Stokes up and down shifted scattering does that seem more sensible? The key is to remember Einstein specified xyz as attached to a "BODY", not, as John says, (and increasingly many others) an unattached mathematical abstraction we keep forgetting to re-attach to reality. And you never know, perhaps I only remember all that as one of my particles wasn't entirely wiped from the last galaxy! -Oh yes, it also resolves the re-ionisation/ re polarisation epoch issue, Chiral polarisation, uncertainty (twin jet precession) etc etc. But lets do things one at a time and get your hyper stream started first, we may need to do a quick runner in 5bn years! Peter report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 20:11 GMT Hi Peter, You'll forgive me if I disagree with the recycled energy idea. Energy exists and appears to have been created. In doesn't matter how many recycling events took place. The energy is here now, so it must have been created. Either choice A or B has any validity. Choice C merely throws "recycling" into the mix as a diversion. Am I wrong? report post as inappropriate Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 00:38 GMT Hi Jason I think the answers are Yes, ..and Yes. Yes I do forgive you as you haven't yet had sight of the evidence, and Yes you are wrong. Recycling is no diversion. If stars only last max 9Bn years where are all the dead galaxies clogging up space stopping us seeing to the ends of the universe? The Sloane DSS has just issued final figures. It recorded 1.6m targets. 8.75 of the galaxies found are quasars. And UCAL Have just found a galaxy with a jet they estimate will eat it all in just 20 odd million years! That all means I've just had to revise the estimated average galaxy recycling time down to about 8.5Bn years, so we may get sucked back in before the sun actually dies! So where do you think quasars get all that energy from? Only a whole galaxy could do it. (My paper's now submitted - I'll post a link when it's up). Have you Googled Centaurus A yet? or the NASA Chandra Crab nebula core black hole shot? Look again at my photo of HH34 in my esay, can you see the giant black hole toroid picked out by the lensing? I prefer to work a different way to most; research and info in first, then opinions out. I've noticed most seem to prefer it the other way round and just have a guess! I hadn't put you down for one of those. Peter report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 01:15 GMT Dear Peter, I googled Centaurus A, which has a black hole at its center and is devouring a spiral galaxy. P:"Recycling is no diversion. " But it is a diversion to the basic question. If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then where did all of this energy come from? I understand that you value other areas of interest above this basic question. Yet I think you would agree with me that Conservation of Energy is blocking further signficant technological progress. Everyone avoids the truth about how the Big Bang managed to ignore Conservation of Energy. All of this exergy exists whether or not we ignore how it was created, which is a violation of CoE. report post as inappropriate Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 01:49 GMT Jason Nice darts! Perfect Bullseye, Do you really believe that nonsense about one galaxy devouring another!?? Yes, the black hole is devouring the galaxy, turning the Lenticular into a ring galaxy as it eats it from the inside and recycles it in the contra flow jets as re-ionised and repolarised plasma on the new axis.(resolving a swathe of anomalies). And -remember this one, the DFM also predicts a really bizarre 4 YEAR lens delay will be found soon! There are over 120,000 out there we've found so far doing the same thing! To be fair I think that comment you found was from a few years ago. The spectroscopy now supports the twin jet model. Just google quasars and you'll see them all in action. Don't always expect to see the other jet, if it's heading away from us it's too red shifted (which is why theyr'e termed 'radio sources'). I'll post a few random papers with the full SP, though not all up to speed.; http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.1484v1. pdf http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408..713W http://dx.d oi.org/10.1088/1464-4258/10/7/075001 http://iopscience.iop.or g/1367-2630/11/1/013029 http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/227/1/012001/pdf Peter report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 03:15 GMT Peter, Hurling darts? I would never hurl darts at you (you specifically); you're a likable person. Anyway, I don't know much about how galaxies interact or what is doing the devouring. I'm more concerned about the Conservation of Energy telling us that energy cannot be created, but not explaining how all this energy got here to begin with. This gravitational lensing stuff might have an influence on what I'm doing. I'm not willing to pay$33 for the article. However, the summary seems to suggest that the Schwartzchild metric can produce an index of refraction, or, in effect, slow light down. I'll have to look into that.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 04:16 GMT
Jason,

Even according to BBT, galaxies coalesce out of the CMBR, so isn't it logical that this sea of energy does gradually coalesce into gases and eventually stars and eventually fall into the vortices at the center of these galaxies, then get radiated back out across the universe? As we can see galaxies over 13 billion lightyears away, that is a lot of energy being radiated away. Possibly it energizes the CMBR and the process starts over again? Collapsing mass and expanding energy. It would explain why gravity and expansion are balanced.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 05:07 GMT
John,

I'm just not knowledgable about the Cosmic Microwave Back Ground other than, it exists. I'm just not understanding how vortices and galaxies condenscing from gasses, how does that answer the question: what created the energy in the first place, in violation of Conservation of Energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Yet, there is an awful lot of it. I've argued that the energy of the big bang, when combined with the negative energy of gravity, that they should add to zero. As for the dark energy that causes expansion, I think that's caused by the quantum vacuum. I suggested to Edwin that the energy of the Big Bang plus the (negative) energy of gravity add to, not zero, but the Cosmological constant. But I'm still pondering that possibility.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 12:22 GMT
Jason

I was talking about the perfect 90 degree bullseye hit on the galaxy with the strangely ungalaxy shaped 'dart'. Anyway, we now know it's jets, going outward, i.e. a typical quasar. It's turning a Lenticular into a Ring galaxy by sucking it all in to the centre and blasting it out as an ion plasma.Gogle the cartwheel galaxy and take a close look at the 'spokes'. They don't radiate from the centre, they're matter drawn in from the ring by the spinning toroid (donut).

There are plenty of free papers on lensing around, but read the facts NOT the astronomers interpreguesses. Plasma with an em field is an excellent refractor, or properly, diffractor, of em wave (functions) and or photons, as well as cosmic rays. How do we thing the LHC bends the beam? by imposing a dense em field, which means condensing dense virtual electrons in the magnets inertial frame, which interact with the dense ditto in the beams frame, which propagates the beam polarised with the (field lines) particles.

Halo's do the same, simple diffraction of light, which also dealys it - but, now switch your brain on, by TWO operators of V, one for the c/n of plasma, and one for the v of the galaxy with respect to the 'space' around it (the CMBR rest frame/ cosmic vacuum/Higgs field - call it what you wish).

There is no other way of producing the delay pattern found, unless you invent giant 'gravity wells' as a patch to hide the light down/under for a few years. Whoever invented that idea just didn't know much about physics!

A non zero co-efficient n form plasma is well established, and PMD (polarisation mode dispersal - see optics) is what slows it and diffracts it. It's hardly rocket science as Maxwell and Stokes knew all about it.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 21:00 GMT
It is irrational to declare 'what if's' and 'could-be's' as something to be accepted as factual.

Just because an observation is consistent with a hypothesis does not mean the hypothesis should be accepted as a framework for a valid theory. There are numerous hypothesis that can account for any particular observation or phenomenon.

The Egyptians planted their crops when Sirius appeared on the horizon at dawn because the Nile would flood a short while after. The Egyptians came up with the theory that the star Sirius caused the flooding of the Nile. A short while after, someone else came up with the theory that the Nile flooded because the God Osris was pissed off at the appearance of the Star sirius and got angry and had a hissy.

Obviously, both theories were completely effective and accurate in predicting the flooding of the Nile. One did not need to understand the theory of Tides or planetary motion to make use of the observations and predict. One theory is only more valuable than another if it can offer more explanatory power and make novel predictions.

Unless a new proposed theory predicts things a current theory can not and the theory can be by falsified by observation, it is worthless. All of the conjectures oferred here cannot be falisifed and do not predict or explain anything that can be tested. They also offer no greater explanatory power over theories which already exists.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. GR is not broke and can account for current observations. It can also make predictions which can be tested. Why go with another theory? Ocaams Razor.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 21:40 GMT
If either Relativity theory or Quantum theory were correct, they would lead us to unity. In other words, if one were correct, it would expand naturally into the domain of the other. Since neither can push out the other, it is evidence that both are incorrect. I think their problems are that they both suffer from theoretical errors made at the fundamental level and inherited by them. So, my point is that they are both broke. The fixed theory will not be either of them and it will replace both of them.

James

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 01:12 GMT
Quantum Theory and all its offspring represent the most successful theories to date. The accuracy and precision of experimental results is pretty mind-boggling and the results usurp anything in existence. Predictions of classical General Relativity have also been verified with high precision. One cannot simply discard them unless one has an alternate theory in place that can not only produce results of equal precision but also produce new predictions that the current theories cannot. The caveat is that these predictions must be open to experimental verification.A new theory cannot simply tell us what we already know--i.e. make the same predictions. They must offer something more.

Also, Implicit in your statement is the assumption that the phenomoneon of gravity is not fundamental to nature and a unfication with the observed natural phenomenon at the quantum scale is not only pssible but also neccesary for a more complete understanding of nature.

I am not arguing for or against the assumption. I am simply pointing out that nature is not obligated to conform to our notions of how things should be. We are simply observers. We don't call the shots.

This assumption has led to the belief that the ultimate solution--a TOE, GUT, what have you--will not only be a thing of elegance and beauty but is an inevtiable outcome.

The fact is, the search for a unified theory has been antyhing but elegant and productive. Instead of producing elegant results that lead to sustantial

gains in our understanding, the community has produced a plethora of competing theories with ever-increasing complexity, many of them of hideous complexity. This effort is all expended in the attempt to try to use brute force to address a problem with an assumed solution. Unfortunately, the effort has produced relativley little in the way of results. It has been one dead-end after another. The result is one hell of a mess.

This work needs to continue but we also need to entertain the pssbility thhat perhaps there is no solution to the problem and the phenomoneon of gravitation is unique and fundamental to nature. It is surpising that among all of the arguments and discussion, nobody ever mentions this as a possibility.

Why shouod it be that Nature must conform to our desire for unification of natural laws?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 01:14 GMT
Anonymous,

I've heard it all before.

"It is irrational to declare 'what if's' and 'could-be's' as something to be accepted as factual. "

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it. GR is not broke and can account for current observations. It can also make predictions which can be tested. Why go with another theory? Ocaams Razor. "

Then you say, "All of the conjectures oferred here cannot be falisifed and do not predict or explain anything that can be tested. They also offer no greater explanatory power over theories which already exists. "

And so I know you're someone who talks like a real physicist, but then you paint all of the ideas here with one broad brush stroke as being worthless. If you had read my essay, Photon Theory, you would see that it is testable and falsifable and it does make novel predictions.

Please sir, be very specific about your attacks. I am happy to defend my paper all day long. You can start there.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 00:30 GMT
Very perceptive James.

Is Mr Anonymous reticent about admitting who is coming up with those rather old non-applicable and unsubstatiated chestnuts?

The fact is, if you're referring to my comments, all the hypothesise are eminently falsifiable and powerfully predictive. But the most interesting thing is (if you really are interested in looking) that they represent only the most minor adjustments to the old theories to make them all slot together.

i.e. the SR postulates are fine, as is Equivalence, and The Principle of Relativity, all with a touch better explanation and a quantum mechanism to drive them. GR is fine, just better explained, and with a ditto. Even the LT, Contraction and Dilation have their place, they're just not as general as we thought (think). QM had a couple of minor sillies to drop and a few to better explain, but also comes out quite intact.

If you throw any paradox or anomaly at the model it now comes out spick, span and clean shaven.

Georgina has just produced a brilliant essay highlighting how we've all been a bit dim. If you really want to hang on to your beliefs whatever, that's fine, but please don't think you'll get away with unsubstantiated criticism any more! You can get the rest of the solution from Edwins and mine - if you can handle the initially difficult extra step of dynamic conceptualisation. Do have a go.

Once you learn integro-differential equations they're a doddle! (I'm told!) But you won't need them initially.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 01:16 GMT
Dear Peter,

My point had to do with my view. My view is that Relativity theory is wrong right from its start. I can't as competently support my opinion of Quantum physics, but, my expectation is that it also is wrong right from its start.

The problem, for me, with Relativity theory is that it relies upon 'time dilation'. I consider 'time dilation' to be evidence of obvious error.

With respect to Quantum theory, it seems to not need time. So, my problem with Quantum theory is that, in my opinion, time is absolute. Or, at least I can claim that there is an absolute constant measure of time. Where-ever or what-ever, that measure is the same everywhere, under all circumstance, anywhere in the universe.

I think that the 'fixed' theory that buries both Relativity theory and Quantum theory will not include important conclusions from either of them. An error that was passed onto both of them is: Both space and time are absolutely out of the reach of experimenters. So, experimental physics cannot support theoretical physicists in this matter.

The first error made by theoretical physicists is: The units of theoretical physics depend upon the correctness of the decision to make mass an indefinable property. In my opinion, it is clearly not indefinable nor is force indefinable. My point is that the errors of theoretical physics begin all the way back at their interpretations of f=ma.

I consider that the key to correcting theoretical physics to be: Neither mass nor force are indefinable, and, they must be corrected by explaining both of them in terms of the units of their empirical data. Their empirical data consists only of units of distance and time.

In other words, their birth must be natural. Natural, insofar as mechanical ideology is concerned, means relying upon measurements of distance and time only. Everything else that is a part of theoretical physics is artificial. Anyone who relies upon properties beyond duration, distance, force, and resistance to force are, I think, victims of theoretical physics.

My opinion is: Measured distance is fine but has nothing to do with a fundamental property of space; measured durations in time are fine but have nothing to do with a fundamental property of time; mass is an object's effect upon the acceleration of light both positive and negative; and, force is the ratio of the object's acceleration to its effect upon the acceleration of light. Force has reduced units that cancel out, a very valuable theoretical tool.

That is where I am coming from. My ideas are different from yours and everyone else's. However, even if one does not agree with me, my original point in my original message stands. Unity is a fundamental certainty because, the universe is orderly and always has been. Any theory that does not lead to fundamental unity is in error.

James

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 13:31 GMT
Anon,

You say "perhaps there is no solution to the problem" and may be right.

But that does not make it right that when a theory emerges with full falsifiability and great predictive power it can be dismissed by assuming it does not have those attributes. Perhaps there may be a real solution, and perhaps it's only the rose tinted and blinkered spectacles, or limitations to the wit of man, that keep it hidden.

The only way you can validly criticise is to study it and find an inconsistency. many have done so, none have yet succeeded. My essay is so packed with the evidence Eckard has commented I need to clean it up to the central message comes across clearer and can be more easily comprehended.

It seems he's right, even if it will only invite more comments like your own. I know I can't expect everyone to say; "ah! yes of course, dammit how on earth could we have missed something so simple" .. without having a chance to understand it first.

It clears up all the mess you refer to, I promise, that was only there due to those specs, and so far with anomalies it's been like a magic bullet.

It's simply a 3rd way, between an absolute 3rd frame and no (CMBR) frame at all

Remmember - foundations are essential, but if you design and build the foundations before you've designed the superstructure the foundations become a 'box' that you can't think outside. It must all be designed consistently, then it can be built properly without false limits. as one,

I beg you please study the model and challenge any assumption or element you wish. Criticism is otherwise less than worthless.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 20:05 GMT
While the rest of the physics community is making an all out effort to create a physics theory that is incomprehensible to everyone, and reinforces the idea that everything is impossible, I'm going to take my Photon Theory and try to develop a testable hyperspace theory. I'm starting with the idea that I can create anything, as long as I create its anti-everything partner. For example, conservation of energy is upheld if no not energy has ever been created. I can always say that,

$-A+A=0$
.

In the case of the Big Bang,

$-E_{BB}+E_{BB}=0$

But the negative energy of the Big Bang manifests as gravity. In figure 1 of my paper, Photon Theory, I described a symmetry between time dilation and photon frequency. I want to try the same trick to create a hyperspace.

In our universe, the photons are the positive energy and become the particles. In contrast, the negative energy becomes the curvature of space-time. I want to try reversing the symmetry by making the positive energy the space-time, and make the negative energy the photon and the particle. I will adjust my constants in such a way that I get a suitable hyper-space that is available to our universe. It's a very simple approach that's worth a try.

By you physicists go ahead with your mind-bending mathematics. Feel free to reinforce the idea that UFO technology is a joke. I've got half the IQ of the rest of you; but I'm going in the right direction. Which of us will get to our goal first?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 00:40 GMT
If the laws of physics permit the existence of a hyperspace, its laws of physics would have to be very careful not to overlap onto ours. Here are some of the details I've been thinking about.

1. Hyper-space has a similar framework to space-time; it has photons (light/electromagnetism) and gravity.

2. The speed of light in hyper-space is c'. The photons in hyper-space (hyper-photons), have a velocity c' >> c;

$c$
c' = \alpha c[

where alpha is a large positive integer.

3. Since the speed of light is so large, then the permeability and permittivity of free space have to be very small. As a result, electric and magnetic fields transfer the same information content with much less energy.

4. If the gravitational constant of the hyper-space universe G'=1, then a very small quantity of energy will induce a gravity field.

5. Shift photons are modeled from the idea that black holes will blue-shift (or redshift) photons. If shift photons could be proven to carry a gravitational potential, then we could use them to trigger a gravity wave in hyperspace. This is how. There are certain frequency shifts that cannot occur outside of a black hole because the curvature of space is too great. However, we can attempt to duplicate shift photons at such a rapid rate that they will transform into a hyper-space gravity wave which moves at velocity c'.

6. If shift photons are attracted and have a high enough repetition rate, then a hyper-space gravity wave will form around the laser emitters.

7. It might be possible to create a hyper-space vacuole around the space-ship. When this occurs, hyper-space will treat the space-ship of mass m as a hyper-space object of mass,

$m$
m' = m\frac{c^2}{c'^2}

In effect, you will have a light weight object of mass m' that will obey conservation of momentum under non relativistic conditions up to a fraction of the speed of light of hyperspace c'.

What do you all think?

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 19:00 GMT
Making space increasingly invisible/transparent in astronomical/telescopic observations is the only way that they are even possible. That is, the observations are extended (and magnified) in keeping with the red shift.

Are they [made] closer or farther way? Think of this in relation to their size.

Gravity is key to distance in/of space. Look down at the increasingly invisible space at your feet, and think!

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 19:16 GMT
F=ma fundamentally represents essentially constant force/energy. The half/middle distance in/of space matches the half/middle force/energy of equivalent/balanced inertia/resistance to acceleration and gravity/acceleration (for they are both at half strength/force). This balances attraction and repulsion, as we are semi-immobilized/semi-mobile in dreams. This generally averages (and controls for)...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 20:53 GMT
John,

If you're there, can you give me the link to the far away blue shifted galaxies that you posted a while back? Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 01:47 GMT
Jason,

Redshiftd, not blueshifted

I googled it, since it was on various sites:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1985654/new_galaxy_
discovered_132_billion_light_years_away/index.html

This was a star of the same age that came up, which had been discovered several years ago:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070511-s
tar-clock.html

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 03:33 GMT
John,

You're my hero.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 05:07 GMT
John,

I think that the Big Bang occurred within a previously existing universe. How is that possible?

Let me tell you a little story. It is the legend of the planet Maldek. Some people think that the asteroid belt in our solar system was the planet Maldek. Maybe it's another asteroid belt, I don't know. Maldek was once an advanced alien civilization that had conquered conservation of energy. They used gravity drives aboard star-ships that could cross the galaxy within hours or days. They even succeeded in building what they called the Big Bang Bomb. The big bang bomb is similar to a capacitor with positive charge on one plate and negative charge on the other plate. When a charged capacitor is discharged, there is a spark. But the big bang bomb is the most powerful weapon that can ever be created. To this day, there are alien intelligences that become upset when the topic of non-conserved energy technology is brought up. Fortunately, the grays (aliens) were happy to share the technology. The Big Bang bomb is made by placing a positive energy singularity in delicate contact with a negative gravitational singularity. The net effect is a bomb the size of a marble that weighs about 5 grams.

The governments of Maldek had no reason to build the bomb, other than the mental and moral illness that had long festered on their planet. In spite of their technological prowess, their culture had shriveled up into a nest of evil and compassion-less intellectuals who would argue that Maldekian life (equivalent to human life) held no intrinsic value.

In one shocking and vile act of insanity, they detonated the bomb on their home-world. The explosion was more powerful then all of the nuclear weapons ever created on earth. The explosion created a high energy shockwave and a gravitational discontinuity that radiated outward at the speed of light. The planet exploded and hurled fragments of rock throughout the solar system.

To this day, the planet Maldek is synonymous with insanity that leads to planetary annihilation.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 11:51 GMT
Jason,

Wow! You mean the entire universe and even what came before is populated by idiots?

There are two reason the Big Bang scenario can't fit within a previous space: one, the stable geometry would mean we would have to be at the exact center of the universe, much as I keep pointing out about lightspeed giving the lie to the idea that the metric of space expands with redshifted galaxies receding. Also, think of the shock wave created by the inflation stage passing through space necessarily energized by its own fluctuating energy.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 12:53 GMT
Jason

Glad you agree about the previous universe. The physical evidence is quite consistent with it, just a scaled up version of Quasar recycling.

John

Yes, and the search for intelligent life continues! The big Blazar jet recycling process fits in nicely with what we see, the 'axis of evil', apparently quadrupolar but 'helical' asymmetry, expansion, etc. But it would mean expansion is slowing and the medium provides most of the observed red shift.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 20:11 GMT
Peter,

Here are two interesting papers Israel Perez pointed out:

Here

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov
_AIP_978_3_SpaceMaterialContinuumCosmologicalRedshift.pdf]Th
ere

Take away from the first:

"Eq.(12)shows that an initial distribution of the energy as function of k will change in time in the sense that the amplitudes of the shorter waves will diminish faster in time than the amplitudes of the longer waves. This will lead to redistribution of the amplitudes and to a change of the apodization function of a wave packet that is subject to evolution according to Jeﬀrey’s equation. Therefore a general shift of the central wave number towards longer waves (smaller wave numbers k) is to be expected. In the case of light, this is called ‘‘redshift’’.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 20:25 GMT
John,

The universe is not populated by idiots. It's a planet by planet distinction.

The geometry problem is taken care of be the difference in gravitational energy. We know that the Big Bang did not result in a black hole. I think it was because the energy density was constant inside of the big bang (at least initially). That has the effect of creating a constant gravitational energy which means it flat, but very negative with respect to the previously existing universe. Eventually that gravitational potential energy difference between the previous universe and the new Big Banged universe reached equilibrium. Sort of like how the water of a melting ice cube eventually reaches the same level as the floor.

Peter,

When I drew the picture, the conservation of energy problem of the big bang was resolved. If you want, I can email you the picture. I don't think I have your email.

I have attributed to Hubble constant increasing redshift to a repulsive property of the quantum vacuum. However, now is a good time to re-evalute that idea and look for something a little more simple.

BTW, it looks like I'm taking a stand on a Pre-existing universe. If you have any links, I would be grateful. I'll have to start treating these citations like sword and shield.

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 19:09 GMT
Jason,

I posted this communication last week on the wrong thread and I think you missed it.

Jason,

Take a look a my essay. It starts off a little slow, but be patient, the payoff is worth it. I believe I've given a more than adequate argument for the singularity to be the result of the release of gravitational potential energy from a previous cycle of the universe through continuous expansion. It's very compatible with Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclical Cosmology and his " outrageous proposal" that the Big Bang and the Extreme future of our cosmos are physically identical. I've reached a similar conclusion using simple conceptual analysis and graph theory, instead of topological arguments. My model is different in that the Supermassive and Intermediate Mass Black holes do not entirely dissipate and emerge from the surface of last scattering with protogalaxies already intact.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 23:28 GMT
The key in fundamentally unifying gravity and electromagnetism is to balance attraction and repulsion in keeping with half strength, balanced, and equivalent gravity AND inertia.

Indeed, quantum gravity requires the fundamental averaging of both inertia and gravity.

None of you can dispute this, and you cannot legitimately evade it either.

When you have the basic facts/truth, then you are stuck with the basic facts/truth.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 00:00 GMT
Indeed, space must be equally contracted (semi-detached from touch) and expanded (again, semi-detached from touch). Space then matches the half/middle force/energy of equivalent/balanced inertia/resistance to acceleration and gravity/acceleration (for they are both at half strength/force). This balances attraction and repulsion. Therefore, space manifests in accordance with the middle/typical/average distance in/of space. Space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy in/as dream experience. The key in fundamentally unifying gravity and electromagnetism is to balance attraction and repulsion in keeping with half strength, balanced, and equivalent gravity and inertia. Indeed, quantum gravity requires the fundamental averaging of both inertia and gravity in keeping with space that is semi-detached from touch. I have clearly demonstrated all of this in/as dream experience.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 01:10 GMT
Photon Theory lives or dies on the assumption that all physics can be decomposed into photons and wave-functions. Even gravity.

Why does particle/anti-particle annihilation occur? When a particle meets it's anti-particle, the two wave-functions add to zero and vanish. The photons trapped inside are freed and fly away as gamma rays.

Wave function A can add to wave function (-A) yielding zero. A wave-function for an electron can add to the wavefunction of an anti-electron, and add to zero.

Photon Theory says that gravity and curvature of space-time are all made out of wave-functions of some form. I'm taking a closer look at frequency modulation in hopes of costructing a gravitational wave-function using frequency modulation.

A planet, star of black hole will cause a photon to blueshift (relative to a stationary observer) on the way in. Photon theory requires that this photon interacts with the wave-function of the gravity field.

Using frequency shift photons, can I create a wave-function that will cancel out this gravitational wave-function?

Using lasers of different frequencies, can I construct a wave-function that will look similar enough to a gravitational wave-function, then particles will act like they're interacting with a gravity field?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 03:29 GMT
Dan,

I've been thinking about gravity waves and what they are or might be. Riding around in a negative potential energy gravity wave is one approach. The Alcubierre surfing approach is another. I've been studying shift photons very carefully trying to understand exactly how they would work. If they did work, then they carry a gravitational potential energy.

I would much prefer that we ran the experiment and obtained some data. I'm trying to speculate with too little information. Nevertheless, we should remember that our mass-energy is attached to the piece of space-time that we occupy. The space-time is subject to gravitational potential energy. By transmitting frequency shift photons, instead of just photons, I am sure that we would have some measureable effect upon the space around the experiment.

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 20:59 GMT
Jason,

I believe I have a tentative solution that no one certainly has ever dreamt of. It makes perfect sense to me, but undoubtably will be considered extremely controversial (in more ways than one). Before I unveil it, I need to get my HBCS Cosmology paper up to professional standards and submit it to a peer review journal as it will be support for the additional work. This is something totally new to me, so I'm researching technical papers, while trying to learn the proper physics in order to emulate a proper research paper with my own ideas. Dr. Christian Corda has said my approach was interesting and invited me to submit a technical paper to one of the two journals of which he is Editor In Chief. So I have my work cut out for me, since this essay contest was my first attempt at expressing any of my ideas.

As I have said previously, this new idea is outlandish, but that doesn't mean it isn't correct. It brings together quite a few concepts to explain a certain phenomena in which you have shown a lot of interest. I'll be sure to let you know, when I submit it for publication, but it may be a while.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 08:54 GMT
Dan,

Do you realize that the expansion of the universe is evidence that gravitational energy can be positive and repulsive? The Alcubierre drive is probably the better bet. I'm not prepared, just yet, to consider FTL drive capability. Gravity waves are expected to travel at the speed of light. But if the generation of gravity waves can be tied to the repetition rate of the shift photon generators, then exactly what restricts the uppermost velocity of the space-craft? Probably the repetition rate which is about 10GHz. I need to think about this.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 11:01 GMT
There is a bit of a problem. I can't tell if relativistic time dilation comes into play. If it does, then the ship photon repetition rate slows down until it no longer generates gravity waves. However, shift photons create gravitational potentials that could lead to superluminal velocities; this occurs below the event horizon surface of black holes.

Shift photon experimentation will eventually become necessary.

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 20:11 GMT
Jason,

Take a look at this essay. It was an honorable mention in the 2009 Gravity Research Foundation Essay Contest. This was written by an amateur, one of the very few to be so honored. His conclusion was that gravitons had to travel FTL.

BTW the expansion of the universe is evidence that spacetime can move FTL.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 23:38 GMT
Hi Dan,

I read the essay. It's an impressive article; I wouldn't mind discussing ideas with Brannem.

I have trouble with the idea that gravitons are point-like particles that implement the force of gravity. I would happily entertain the idea that gravitons are one or two dimensional objects or waves of some kind. Perhaps even one dimensional space-time objects of the form, U=U_0 cos (kx-\omega t)

$U=U_0 cos (kx-\omega t)$

where U is the gravitational potential energy.

I think space-time is an object (a wave-function) that seeks equilibrium from non-energy conserving excitations. Space-time would use gravity waves to achieve equilibrium. Similar to the energy levels of atoms, space-time would have gravity waves that move at the speed of light c, 2c, 3c, ...

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 01:26 GMT
I've got it! I have a way to excite gravity waves in such a way as to produce an Alcubierre style gravity drive. By carefully canceling the gravity waves between front and back, a 1g gravity acceleration can be maintained within the spaceship.

Don't ask me how it travels, I have no idea at this point. Just bring lots of maps and hope you don't get lost.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 01:31 GMT
I meant, don't ask me how FAST it travels. Without experimenting with shift photons, there is no way of knowing.

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 01:28 GMT
Jason,

Yeah, it's pretty well done for an non-academic. If gravitons are real, it makes sense that they would have a velocity > c since the motion of spacetime isn't restricted in velocity. It makes you wonder how this would effect the gravity wave detectors.

It's hard to believe anything in nature is truly point-like, rather than just an approximation due to relative scales. It's a philosophical question. It's not like we're ever going to ever be able to probe any scale even close to the planck scale. We always have to keep in mind that our models and theories are just an approximation to reality and there is a certain limit to what we will be able to learn.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 01:36 GMT
Hi Dan,

Science needs to a better job of using its models to come up with testable experiments. I know I keep bugging everyone about shift photons. Now I'm saying that gravity waves can be excited, and quickly damped out. In the process, very strong gravity potential energies, + and -, can be generated. I have a some pictures, but not so many words yet.

Forgive me, I am blown away by the implications of these ideas. I might email (you and others) a first revision.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 08:06 GMT
Is anyone here an expert of general relativity? I'm trying to make sense of the space-time metric written about in a book called Exploring Black Holes, Intro to general relativity; written by Taylor and Wheeler.

There's a sentence that makes absolutely no sense to me,

"pg1-2: all inertial observers, whatever their state of relative motions and whatever values they measure for s and t, agree on the value of the time tau between ticks as recorded on the wristwatch carried by the stone."

$\tau^2 = t^2 - s^2$

I thought they agreed on the invariance of the speed of light?

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 11:20 GMT
There is no preferred inertial frame. Therefore, Lorentz invariance guarantees that each observer can measure proper time regardless of their individual states of motion.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 11:49 GMT
The proper time is the frame of reference that generated the two events (two ticks). An argon ion laser aboard a space-ship might have a period equal to tau, right? But then other observers who watch the space-ship fly by at some velocity v would observe a different period, right?

Does the sentence simply mean that all observers agree to use the space-time metric equation?

$\tau^2 = t^2 - s^2$

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 13:11 GMT
Not two events. One event measured in two different inertial frames, neither of which is privileged to say what the "correct" measurement is. Lorentz invariance reconciles the measurements objectively, so that both observers can be sure they are witnessing the same event.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 17:17 GMT
Don't try to complicate the principle with your own equations. Go back to the basics of general relativity (Einstein wrote, separately and with his collaborator Leopold Infeld, a couple of really accessible books on the subject). The physics we're concerned with here is:

1. The non-simultaneity of events

2. Lorentz invariance

It has little or nothing to do with time dilation, which is not an independently real physical phenomenon, but a result of spacetime geometry. Once you understand the profound significance of interpreting the Pythagorean theorem in 4 dimensional Riemannian geometry, most of these issues will be clear.

In any case, one does not get "x" from the metric signature of your last equation. These are 4-dimension coordinate points, accounting for the time-distance point (ct)^2 of a continuous (Minkowski) spacetime. It merely describes the metric one encounters when moving up from the three-dimension coordinate system (x^2 + y^2 + z^2) to the 4 dimension system, to describe a location in time, combined with the spatial coordinates.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 19:48 GMT
"It merely describes the metric one encounters when moving up from the three-dimension coordinate system (x^2 + y^2 + z^2) to the 4 dimension system, to describe a location in time, combined with the spatial coordinates."

For the purposes of understanding the space-time metric, I could imagine converting a two spatial plane into a 3D space-time. It's simply easier to visualize.

I agree. I have to understand general relativity based upon its own assumptions. I'm not ready to introduce time dilation/length contraction at this point.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 06:46 GMT
Does anyone see a similarity between length contraction and space-time curvature?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 09:30 GMT
Hi Jason the creative, but where were you???

For the ask....I beleive that we can reduce the space and we can decrease our intrinsic clock but I don't think it's linked with the space time curvature.We can only travel in space thus.In logic the space is without rotation but the quantum number is the same thus we can imagine that if we contract this space we contract the entanglement thus we decrease the space between two points, two spheers.....if we decrease the duration also thus we can go far and with a shorter period simply.....Now how can we contract this space, logically we change space in light or in mass, thus we cretae rotations and thus we decrease the spaces by a kind of activation due to a contraction of lattices.....if a spaceship can convert the space in a short period .....wawwww we can travel everywhere!!!

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 17:13 GMT
Hi Steve,

I've been taking a break from physics. But now, I'm trying to wrap my head around general relativity. Spherical shells seem to be important, at least for black holes.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 10:10 GMT
Happy to see you again.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 11:42 GMT
Hi Mark,

I just started reading your blog for the first time with much interest due the subject mirroring to some extent my latest viewpoint in the FQXi essay competition. I got to this part though where I took issue with your narrative:

"These extra modes make gravity stronger, so we can tell for sure that gravity near us does not have these extra modes. Hence, if no way around this discontinuity could be found, the theory would be dead for good."

If a graviton is modelled as an Archimedes screw then a force of repulsion can just as easily be modelled as a force of attraction. This fits with the Electrostatic and Magnetic forces and so should make instant intuitive sense. It's therefore wrong to say that "gravity is a weak force" when modelling via the graviton/anti-graviton particle model. Baryonic matter may just have a slightly higher emission of gravitons in relation to anti-gravitons, which results in an overall weak attractive gravitational field. This would fit with what we observe in experiment and everyday experience.

Descartes was using this methodology to try to explain the Earth's magnetic field in 1644, long before Newton's equation was adopted without question. This is the missing link in explaining a t.o.e imo, and is blatantly obvious when one explores the possibility further.

Can you bring yourself to believe that Newton got it wrong and that Descartes got it right I wonder?

Kind regards,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 09:53 GMT
.............................tumbleweed.................

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 14:36 GMT
Ultimately, the physical structure of being is inseparable from the physical structure of experience. Here we have the unification of thought/the theoretical, being, and experience.

Distance in/of space as it is represented/experienced by the body is key.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 14:51 GMT
Gravity and electromagnetism are key to distance in/of space. One only has to stand up straight and look down at the ground and feet to see this very important and central physical idea.

Life and experience originate at the center of the human body, not in outer space, and not in a telescope either. Think!

Middle force/energy, middle distance in/of space, and middle feeling -- as this is represented electromagnetically AND gravitationally -- are key to unifying physics generally and fundamentally.

Middle inertia=middle gravity=middle distance in/of space=middle force/energy, and there we have it -- with balanced attraction and repulsion and equivalent/balanced inertia and gravity. A TRULY uniform gravitational field.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 15:02 GMT
Dreams are the theoretical AND actual unification of physics -- consistent with ALL that is said in my two prior posts.

GROWTH of being AND experience are ultimately inseparable.

Goethe: "In order to accomplish something, one must BE something." Plotinus: "Never did the eye see the Sun unless it had first become Sun-like."

More advanced thought/consciousness AND experience are present in (and linked with) more advanced/developed dream experience. Schizophrenics, as an example, dream about/have relatively inanimate or less developed dream experience.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 15:44 GMT
Hi Frank,

thanks for this quote, I hadn't heard it before:

Plotinus: "Never did the eye see the Sun unless it had first become Sun-like."

Best wishes, Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 20:06 GMT
Alan, this is why we can extend vision to astronomical/telescopic observations, as they are related to dream visions and the capacity to see farther in keeping with vision being more like thought (interactive creation of thought).

Gravity must be SEEN -- with equivalent force/energy, that is -- as it is [gravitationally] FELT in order to unify gravity and electromagnetism/light. Dreams do this. Gravity and electromagnetism are key to distance in/of space.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 09:09 GMT
Frank,

I love your new word 'imagineer' which I found at the beginning of your blog dedicated to the unification of the known forces. I liked the style of your presentation and the professionalism of the site, along with a lack of mathematical equations. It showed promise but seemed to me to still have the imagery of a space-time continuum, which is something I've steered away from incidentally.

My methodology was also as an imagineer, but with the addition of assuming that a fundamental mistake had been made before Einstein's intervention. I came to the stark conclusion that Anglo-French rivalry had led Newton to dismiss Descartes' imagery of Archimedes screws as the mediator of the gravity force. His diagram of 1644 shows the applicability of this line of thought. The helical screw analogy can just as easily represent a force of repulsion, which is an instant intuitive fit with the forces of elecrostatics and magnetism. Newton's lack of a mechanism for the gravity effect left an equation which was fundamentally flawed from the outset. If only he had taken Descartes' helical particle model more seriously we would be in a global economy which was no longer so dependent on fossil fuels. A knowledge of the quantum world will lead to huge resouces of much cheaper energy imo.

Kind regards, Alan

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Alan,

You've never heard the term "Imagineer"?

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 15:52 GMT
Hi Alan. That is not my blog, although I have some very, very important ideas/posts there. Also, "Imagineer" is not my word or idea. We need more great concepts, not words. English is the best language for the advanced and consistent communication of ideas.

Dreams combine and include opposites. The proportionate reduction of both feeling and thought also mark the dream as a center of body experience. Balance and completeness go hand-in-hand. Telescopic/astronomical observations have very significant similarities with dream vision(s). This is why the ability to understand them is inherently limited.

When space is SEEN [equivalently -- with the same force/energy] as it is gravitationally FELT -- here we have the unification of gravity and electromagnetism that I have demonstrateed in/as dream experience. Also, we are semi-immobilized in dreams because inertia is at the equivalent (half) force of gravity in dreams.

Just stand up and look at the ground and your feet. Gravity and electromagnetism are key to distance in/of space.

The dream involves what is all essentially the same distance and space. Accordingly, we have shifting and variable quantum mechanical manifestations (on balance) of what is essentially the same.

I have (fundamentally and generally) explained and demonstrated the quantum mechanical origin and nature of matter and energy in/as dream experience.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 15, 2011 @ 17:45 GMT
Alan, averaging the force/energy strengths is key to fundamentally uniting physics. Also, the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximzation of the totality of experience by combining unconscious and conscious experience. This allows for our growth and our becoming other than we are, and it denotes the limits of truth/the understanding as well.

I do not just say things to say them. This is a hugely important and significant point.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 08:57 GMT
Ray and Frank,

Thanks for the clarifications, I made two mistakes in one it seems. I have Walt Disney to thank for the 'imagineering' word then, thanks Walt. I have a question for you both which refers to a section of David Tong's superb essay quoted below:

[quote]However, it is not always so easy to construct a lattice version of a quantum field theory. The trouble lies with fermions, objects which carry half-integer spin so you have to turn around twice before you get back to where you started. There is a long history of headaches associated with lattice fermions, many of them enshrined in the celebrated “no-go theorem” due to Nielsen and Ninomiya [9]. Important progress in the 1990s [10] showed how one can circumvent many, but not all, of these problems. The current state of the art is that there is just a single class of quantum field theories which physicists do not know how to simulate on a computer [11]. This is the class in which fermions that spin in an anti-clockwise direction experience different (non-Abelian) forces from those that spin in a clockwise direction. Such theories are referred to as chiral.

Chiral theories are interesting and delicate. Subtle effects known as anomalies are always lurking, threatening to render the theory mathematically inconsistent. For this reason chiral quantum field theories are rather special. But perhaps the most special among them is the Standard Model. This is a chiral theory because only fermions that spin anti-clockwise experience the Weak force. Chirality is one of the most striking and important features of the Standard Model. Yet, when it comes to constructing a lattice version of the theory, it has consequence: no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the Standard Model. Which means that no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the current laws of physics. [end quote]

In particular, it's this sentence which intrigued me: "The trouble lies with fermions, objects which carry half-integer spin so you have to turn around twice before you get back to where you started."

My imagineering skills kicked in within my subconscious and I've come to the conclusion that fermions must have two types of spin, with one twice the rate of the other. The pictures have yet to set within my mind, but I feel that the dynamics of this scenario describes exactly what David is saying. The physical simulation of the particle configurations will simplify everything so that a bright ten year old could understand it imo. Do you begin to see the imagery I'm getting at?

The mathematical 1/2 spin is therefore very misleading imo and is in reality something much more interesting, with 1:2 spin resonance.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 14:02 GMT
Hi Alan,

Welcome to my program!

Fermions have spin of 1/2 h-bar. Vector Bosons have spin of 1 h-bar, and a TOE must include both (and many also include Scalar Bosons with spin 0 h-bar like the Higgs, Fermions with spin 3/2 h-bar like Gravitinos, and Tensor Bosons with spin 2 h-bar like the Graviton).

At the very least, Bosons and Fermions cannot exist in the same lattice. This was Garrett Lisi's fundamental goof, and this is why I used Supersymmetry and the dual reciprocal lattices in my FQXi essay. Furthermore, different lattices might have to exist for each of those five above-mentioned fundamental intrisic spins, and this may suggest a need for the "Hyper-SUSY" in my book and in my latest Prespacetime Journal article.

A while back, I suggested that you study CPT symmetry. C = Charge, P = Parity = Chirality, and T = Time. Your Archimede's screw model could spin S or Z type twisted rope that would represent left- or right-handed chiral particles.

Another fact that any successful TOE must incorporate is CP violation in the decay of neutral kaons. This requires any TOE to have a complex representation. Going back to the E8 TOE model, this requires one strictly real E8 Gosset lattice to include all fermions, and a second strictly imaginary (imaginary mathematics - not "non-real" effects) dual (reciprocal) E8* Gosset lattice to include all bosons. These two E8 lattices may fall under the umbrella of one SO(32)unification group such that SO(32)~E8xE8* and SO(32) has the desired complex representations for CP violation.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle allows us to measure - at most - half of the dynamic variables in any given experiment. Perhaps this is because we have two dual lattices - one observing "real" and the other observing "imaginary" mathematics, such that we can only extract half of the information at most. If Hidden Variables do exist as Einstein specualted, this limitation would make it difficult (or impossible?) to prove experimentally.

The great news is that Solid State Physics already uses direct and reciprocal lattices, so we don't have to invent a new mathematics to explain these lattice TOE's.

My Doctorate was in Particle Physics. I also studied quite a bit of Solid State Physics and Plasma Physics. I also taught full-time for 3 years, and part-time for 6 years, and worked with NASA a couple of Summers. I won't purposely mislead you.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 23:15 GMT
p.s. Alan - The Scalar (0 h-bar spin) Higgs is theoretically associated with the property of Inertia, and the Tensor (2 h-bar spin) Graviton is theoretically associated with the property of Quantum Gravity.

I almost wonder if the intrinsic spin of fundamental particles "wraps around" and starts over again at 2 h-bar (360 degrees of "real" space plus 360 degrees of "imaginary" space equals 720 degrees, and the "circles" start over again), such that:

s' = s (mod 2), or

0 = 2 (mod 2) and the spin-0 origin of Inertia is the "opposite side of the coin" as the spin-2 origin of Gravity.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 17, 2011 @ 03:29 GMT
p.s. - Alan,

A Fourier transform can convert a direct lattice into a reciprocal lattice, and vice versa. Likewise Supersymmetry can convert a Fermion into a Boson and vice versa. Thus Supersymmetry (and the Fourier transform) is part of the mathematics required to unify two dual lattices (one of Fermions and the other of Bosons) into one Theory of Everything (TOE).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 19:12 GMT
Alan, force/energy should be equivalent with distance in/of space. Combine and include opposites in conjunction therewith.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 19:27 GMT
The ultimate understanding of physics combines and includes opposites. Inertial and gravitational equivalency fundamentally balances and stabilizes distance in/of space.

F=ma ultimately signifies inertia that is equivalent with acceleration/gravity

and also with distance in/of space in a uniform gravitational field that is fundamentally quantum mechanical with balanced attraction and repulsion. This is the result of combining and including larger and smaller space. This then demonstrates/includes quantum gravity as well, for the space is equally invisible and visible. Force/energy is theoretical/thoughtful, potential, and actual. This unifies physics.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 19:53 GMT
Fundamentally, force or energy is theoretical/thoughtful, actual, AND potential, as there is no fundamental difference between being and experience.

Bodily experience is key to unification in physics.

F=ma is the most basic law of physics, insofar as when force or energy is equally invisible and visible, inertia and gravity are equivalent/balanced. Combining and including visible and invisible space in conjunction therewith is key. Such elemental and constant force or energy generally controls for/averages motion and is demonstative of the successful merger of theoretical/thoughtful, potential, and actual. Combining and including opposites fundamentally unifies physics. Middle force or energy is therefore reflective of, and in harmony with, middle inertia and middle gravity.

Gravity is key to distance in/of space. Stand up and look at your feet and the ground. Ultimately, in dreams, middle gravity is middle distance in/of space, and middle inertia, and middle gravity. Being, experience, and thought are ultimately inseparable.

The origination and growth of our being, experience, and thought are inseparable from the center of the human body.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 20:05 GMT
A truly uniform gravitational field has equivalent/balanced inertia and gravity

and is fundamentally quantum mechanical in nature with balanced attraction and repulsion and stabilized distance in/of space that is equivalent to the force or energy therewith.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 20:20 GMT
Combining and including invisible and visible space so that inertia and gravity are equivalent/balanced is the way that visible space is ultimately distingished from invisible space in conjunction with distance in/of space. This is consistent with the following:

F=ma ultimately signifies inertia that is equivalent with acceleration/gravity. A truly uniform gravitational field has equivalent/balanced inertia and gravity, and this space is necessarily invisible and visible. This balanced attraction and repulsion. This all happens in/as dream experience.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 20:29 GMT
Space is ALL THE SAME when it is BOTH invisible AND visible, AND when this space ALSO includes visible and invisible space as well. Here we fundamentally unify gravity and inertia by combining and including opposites. Accordingly, dreams fundamentally unify physics.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 20:42 GMT
Gravity and inertia are fundamentally understood as the equivalent/balanced force or energy that is exerted by both invisible AND visible space.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 20:56 GMT
Quantum gravity is only possible given the inertial and gravitational equivalency/balancing that is conferred by combining larger and smaller space.

Space is then semi-detached from touch. This involves combining (and including) invisible and visible space.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 21:10 GMT
NEW LAW OF PHYSICS: Gravity and inertia are fundamentally understood as the equivalent/balanced force or energy that is exerted by both invisible AND visible space.

NOTE: True in relation to the vision and experience of the body as well.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 21:15 GMT
Visible space is invisible.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 16:41 GMT
The interactive nature and extensiveness of being, space, experience, and thought is central to any unified understanding of physics.

Full gravity is full motion/mobility. Full gravity is full distance in/of space. (Just stand up and look at the ground and your feet.)Gravity/acceleration is ultimately a binding energy or force. Accordingly, the space of dreams is semi-detached from touch. This is because gravity and inertia are balanced/equivalent (at half strength) in dreams.

It is because gravity and inertia are balanced/equivalent (at half strength) in dreams that the experience feels typical/ordinary. Semi-immobilized in dreams is balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 16:58 GMT
There is no other way to generally unify physics in the absence of inertia and gravity being equivalent (both at half strength/force) in conjunction with thought, being, space, and experience. Gravity and inertia must be combined and included (as opposites). Indeed, this brings quantum mechanical phenomena fundamentally (and fully) into play. DISTANCE in/of space is ALL then understood to be in/as the MIDDLE in keeping with the HALF strength force or energy of both gravity and inertia.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 17:07 GMT
Gravity/acceleration, as a binding energy or force, is everything at bottom in physics. It is essential for distance in/of space, and for the variability of distance in/of space as well.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 16:51 GMT
Gravity is key to both the variability and stability of distance in/of space as this is fundamentally reflected by force and energy. Gravity is a potential, actual, and theoretical/thoughtful manifestation at bottom.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 22, 2011 @ 18:16 GMT
As space can be larger/magnified and yet farther away if it is in an increasingly invisible/trnsparent space. Look down at the Earth. Indeed, to make space MORE visible via telescopic/astronomical observations, the space must be MORE invisible as well on balance.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 22, 2011 @ 18:27 GMT
See how this relates to the red-sift? Space can be larger/magnified and yet farther away if it is in an increasingly invisible/transparent space. Look down at the Earth. Indeed, to make space MORE visible via telescopic/astronomical observations, the space must be MORE invisible as well on balance. Look at the setting/reddening Sun, and consider the red-shift generally. Astro./teles. obs. are smaller and larger. Consider where red sits on the visible light spectrum. Look at your eye -- black and invisible, that is. Think!

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 25, 2011 @ 17:28 GMT
For the force/energy of space to be seen (electromagnetically, that is) as it is equivalently felt (gravitationally, that would be) invisible and visible space have to be combined, balanced, and included in conjunction with distance in/of space as it is represented in conjunction with inertial and gravitational equivalency. Gravity and electromagnetism are key to distance in/of space. In other words, distance in/of space must be fundamentally stabilized and balanced in conjunction with all that is stated above.

Vision begins invisibly and gravitationally inside the eye. Now look down at your feet and the ground while standing. Gravity is key to distance in/of space. Gravity AND electromagnetism are invisible and visible. The key is to represent space as invisible and visible in an equivalent and balanced fashion in conjunction with gravitational and inertial equivaleny. This balances attraction and repulsion in conjunction with stabilized distance in/of space.

As space can be larger/magnified and yet farther away if it is in an increasingly invisible/trnsparent space. Look down at the Earth. Indeed, to make space MORE visible via telescopic/astronomical observations, the space must be MORE invisible as well on balance.

The FLATTENED/ENLARGER looking earth AND red sun are due to the increased transparency/invisibility of space. The earth is in an increasingly transparent/invisible space, and it is flattened/larger looking than other objects near earth, and yet farther away.

As space can be larger/magnified and yet farther away if it is in an increasingly invisible/trnsparent space. This explains the red-shift.

Note that the red sun looks more like the earth. Note the invisible/transparent and black spaces within the eye. Note the right (90 degree) angle that is represented while looking straight ahead and straight downward.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frsnk Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 13, 2011 @ 00:13 GMT
An "object" may be larger/magnified and yet farther away if it is in an increasingly invisible space. This relates to the red-shift, the setting sun, and also to looking downwards, as a dropped object moves away. Note that the Earth is an INHERENTLY larger/flattened object compared to those other nearby objects in its transparent/invisible space.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 13, 2011 @ 00:22 GMT
The invisible BODY/eye adjoins invisible space, and the visible feet/BODY adjoins visible space. Gravity is, ultimately, key to vision and distance in/of space.

Keep an eye on the next issue of Physics Today.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 13, 2011 @ 17:37 GMT
The (equivalence principle) demonstrates gravity as attractive, so it does not allow for stabilized and fundamental distance in/of space that is equivalent with/as force/energy. Repulsion and attraction are not balanced ultimately, and inertia and gravity are not balanced with/as fundamental distance in/of space.

An accelerating or expanding universe does not compensate for this either.

Einstein's description of gravity as attractive ultimately fails, as he rightfully understood. The falling man is his downfall, as he hits the ground, for the objects in the falling elevator, likewise, move together.

True inertial and gravitational equivalency balances attraction and repulsion, and balances gravity and electromagnetism in conjunction with distance in/of space as it is equivalently expressed with/as force/energy.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 13, 2011 @ 17:44 GMT
Here is what Einstein was lacking:

Space manifests in/as the middle distance in/of space in conjunction with half gravity and half inertia in dreams, and space is contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in keeping therewith. Space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic/inertial energy in dreams, thereby balancing attraction and repulsion.

Dreams are a linked center of body experience that are inseparable from our growth and our becoming other than we are.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 13, 2011 @ 17:46 GMT
I deserve the Nobel Prize in physics.

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Super Cosmic Ray replied on May. 13, 2011 @ 18:07 GMT
Sadly enough, I don't think you can nominate yourself ;-)

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 13, 2011 @ 21:29 GMT
But where were you Dr Cosmic Ray, sorry Dr super cosmic Ray, you make surf or what??? LOL

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Super Cosmic Ray replied on May. 13, 2011 @ 21:41 GMT
Hey Lil' Bro' aka Sphere-Keeper Steve,

I can't play all the time - sometimes a serious review of quaternions and octonions is good for the soul. Look out for the next paper! I just couldn't resist responding to FMD's outrageous claim. Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on May. 17, 2011 @ 11:02 GMT
Hi Ray,

You know we were talking about the increase in global earthquake activity earlier, well, take a look at this paper which shares the same ideas as I do. Astronomical alignments as the cause of ~M6+ seismicity

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on May. 17, 2011 @ 15:11 GMT
There's this as well: Spain earthquake: Was Raffaele Bendandi correct?

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 17, 2011 @ 19:30 GMT
Hi Alan,

Although tidal effects on earthquake activity could be relevant, I think that these effects are proprtional to mass/(distance)^3. As such, the primary tidal contributions are from the Sun and Moon, which occurs twice a month during the Spring tides. How can Omerbashich really predict an earthquake based on tidal effects if your greatest tidal effects occur biweekly?

Bandandi was close, but not quite correct...

Hi Steve,

I have always liked Quaternions and Octonions. I guess you could say I was a "Baezian stringy thinker" before I ever heard of John Baez (but after I heard of Joan Baez...)

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on May. 18, 2011 @ 09:56 GMT
Yes, I agree on the R3 relationship but your assumptions are based on simple Newtonian physics. There's a good hypothesis that the inclination angle is also of primary importance due to the work of Muller and MacDonald. This complicates the physics enormously and opens up the possibility of some truth to the orbital effects of other celestial bodies having a tipping effect. There's also the possibility of the Earth's inner innermost core having a differential rotation for example. It isn't such an open and shut case as you might like to think Ray..

Alan

report post as inappropriate