Faster than Light

Akinbo Ojo

Peter J, I couldn't read the paper because it required signing in. But as I had some spare time I read one of yours on vixra.

I submit the reason why you think that in your dynamic papers, (not galaxy evolution) 'no other solution come close' is because the foundation is more or less good, old and reliable Galilean relativity. If you disagree what is the point of departure?

On the cosmology topic. Our universe's mass is said to be about 1052kg. Was this mass there from the beginning of its evolution? That is, was it always constant by means of your "Mass 'flow' is continuous" mechanism? Does your model universe have a fixed or infinite size, or was it smaller in size in the past and increasing? Or as in my opinion, was the mass of the universe and its radius both smaller in the past and both increasing, with their fixed ratio given by the parameter Omega ~ 1 from the beginning, thus making unnecessary an inflationary scenario to convert Omega >> 1 to ~ 1? Recall that the purpose of inventing inflation was for this purpose to resolve the 'flatness' problem. So, what if the universe was born already flat?

Regards,

Akinbo

*It would have been better to take this discussion to a cosmology blog, if any others will join.

* Anonymous posts, I think can be reduced by copying long posts after typing, logging out, logging in again, then paste and send.

pjackson

Akinbo,

Galilean relativity plus the LT are indeed foundations, but it's the 'departure' (really just 'better interpretation') that brings the consistency 'no other solution come close' to. The 'point' is the same one Einstein had for deriving SR; to explain apparent CSL, which had the whole scientific world confounded!

The 'new physics' is in applying the rule; 'electrons scatter at c'. I know it doesn't sound new, and its well proven but it's not applied. It's very Occam! Electrons exist at rest in both Maxwell's near and far field. They are NOT 'virtual' they are REAL! The electrons, in relative motion, modulate the propagation speed to c BOTH sides of Maxwell's transition zone. At a lens the TZ is 1 micron from the surface (for light). Ask any radio antenna engineers where it is for different wavelengths.

The position increases with size and relative speed. For a galaxy it's the halo. Light does c wrt the cluster OUTSIDE the halo, but c wrt that galaxy INSIDE. That simple mechanism resolved a stack of anomalies in astronomy. The anomalies resolved in physics are more numerous.

That mankind is so blind to this massively important and self evident truth, even when explained and so fully evidenced, leaves me nonplussed. I'd hoped you might help me understand.

The universe's mass is a potentially misleading guess and a red herring. We don't even understand what 'mass' is! Dark energy anyway makes up the vast majority of the total mass/energy, and the amount of dark matter condensing changes all the time (fermions have mass). It appears the proportion of baryonic matter increases with each cycle if we use the galaxy model.

The cycle of galaxy types is the same at all ages of the universe, but today's are massively 'larger'! (Ave. x10 in mass and x4 in size). The apparent reason is the new ionization from the jets on each recycling (new fermions condensed for the shear collimation hypersurfaces). Omega, the 2nd Law, etc are all evidence of our poor understanding so will misguide. Each universe both expands and contracts, but grows with each cycle.

Signing in to Academia is simple,

Peter

Thomas Ray

"Look at the LT. I derive it physically, consistent with all experiments and all other theory. Yet people prefer SR's ('complete!') magical 'transform' to classical mechanics."

Peter, you're confused. The Lorentz transformation is a mathematical artifact that explains why the speed of light is measured to be the same in all reference frames. So were one to 'derive it physically,' the result would be no more than what the physical facts already confirm.

Special relativity makes predictions independent of the known measured speed of light, in a closed logical judgment that compels the speed of light to be constant in all reference frames. No magic required.

pjackson

Tom,

Mathematics models nature. Mainly geometry and dynamics. It has no physical meaning or existence of it's own. The belief that is does only grows when you become too familiar with it. It's not me whose confused Tom.

You've constantly ducked the question why SR violates the rules of arithmetic at the mass description in E= m/c^2. All relativists do so. That's the 'magic' in the present interpretation. Whatever mathematics you wish to do it's only physical effects that can 'compel' the propagation speed of EM oscillations to have a maximum wrt all local datums.

Peter

Thomas Ray

Dude, the speed of light is an emprirical measurement. Physical.

pjackson

Tom,

Exactly. A local 'propagation' speed as Einstein specified. So we have TWO possibilities;

1. It's changed and wavelength compressed or expanded (Doppler shift) on 'arrival' (interaction) to now be c in the NEW frame (as well as the old when it was there).

2) It's all done by maths alone plus sleight of hand with changing the description of mass for m = E/c^2. So if your pal beside you now moves towards the source...there is no 'physical' mechanism as nothing 'changes' even though the interactions are different.

'Intelligent enough' readers can make their choice.

And consider way back in Tau, the 'I Ching' is the "Book of Changes." In the I Ching, the basic processes are called 'the CHANGES and are seen as essential for an understanding of all natural phenomena. It's not all ying, but always ying and yan. Perhaps we regressed!

Peter

Thomas Ray

"'Intelligent enough' readers can make their choice."

Intelligent readers can learn what the actual theory says.

Eckard Blumschein

Peter,

I quoted in my reply of Jun 10 the sentence "The theory predicts that the process continues forever in distant parts of our cosmos, producing a space that is not just huge but truly infinite," from the link you gave: New Scientist Crunch time for physics. What's next? 2014. Isn't my objection justified?

Eckard

Thomas Ray

By the way, Jacob Bekenstein is not talking about discarding special relativity. And as to, " ... I've noticed the serious error the ten top names writing there (New Scientist) have made, they've apparently completely neglected to consult Tom or his 'credible and respected sources!" Dude, they are the credible and respected sources.

pjackson

Eckard,

I agree your objection is justified, if perhaps your suggested solution not complete.

Tom will suggest there's no physical 'process'. Einstein knew there must be.

I show how the domain limits can be defined by the boundary process. A galaxy only affects light entering it's halo, the sun only light entering it's heliosphere, the Earth its ionosphere, a lens its surface fine structure.

Only if nothing in the cosmos and universes moves can relative speed be c/n at infinite range. The mechanism is 'scattering' at each electrons own c. Is there anything you find inconsistent about that?

Tom,

I'm glad they consulted with you. Those rose tinted spectacles suit you!

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

"Only if nothing in the cosmos and universes moves can relative speed be c/n at infinite range. The mechanism is 'scattering' at each electrons own c. Is there anything you find inconsistent about that?"

Of course.

1. There is no relative speed. Special relativity is about uniform motion.

2. Therefore, if 'c/n' has any meaning at all, c/n = 1.

3. Special relativity does treat the cosmos as if nothing were moving; it is about rigid transformations between observer frames.

Next.

pjackson

Tom,

No theory can be falsified by invoking any other theory. Your points are then scientifically invalid.

Peter

Thomas Ray

Peter, my objection is that your 'theory' is not compatible with special relativity. If you told me you had a theory that violates the second law of thermodynamics, I would react the same.

Akinbo Ojo

Tom, Peter

If the Pope can call for a truce between Palestinians and Israelis, perhaps it is not out of place to also call a truce, even if temporary and you have to pretend...

On a more relevant note

Tom,

"There is no relative speed. Special relativity is about uniform motion".

Pray, where have you observed this uniform motion? I thought the Earth was in circular motion and is even spinning? It is not moving in a straight line, neither then can anything stationary on it move in a straight line, or can they? If you say, yes, please define what 'uniform motion in a straight line is', 'where that straight line is', etc, taking note that as you have said your favorite theory is 'closed and complete'.

Peter,

"Galilean relativity plus the LT are indeed foundations"

Does sound undergo Lorentz transformation or why this fascination with LT?

"We don't even understand what 'mass' is"

Agreed. But why does current cosmology want ALL the mass in the universe to be created in ONE day? Nature does not seem to work that way. The Sun, the Earth and even Man was not created in one day, but evolved over time.

"... will suggest there's no physical 'process'. Einstein knew there must be.

Still Galilean relativity, because essentially you are making use of matter media bound to the celestial object under reference! In other words, you are introducing 'Galileo's ship' to explain the dynamical transformation within and from without the ship. And in case it has been forgotten, the two contending positions in 1887 was whether or not light needed a medium to travel and the relationship of that medium to the Earth, if such a medium existed. A logical medium was absent and in 1905, Einstein proposed his solution, which I dare say, if no medium is possible, SR must stand. And by the way you talk a lot of electrons scattering light to local c, how does light travel in space no matter how small where there are no electrons?

"Each universe both expands and contracts, but grows with each cycle"

Are you a believer in Multiverses?

To paraphrase Newton,

Tom is my friend, Eckard is my friend, Peter is my friend but my greatest friend is Truth.

Regards,

Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,

I agree. Nobody could turn an Ayatolla Christian!

"Does sound undergo Lorentz transformation or why this fascination with LT?"

Yes, but it's well outside audible range! Just Google 'non-linear optics' or 'Optical Breakdown' mode. The LT is not a "fascination", it's a consistent finding that needs an explanation. When wavelength approaches the minimum 'gamma' (OB mode) the ability to propagate falls off and any additional energy is emitted as heat. There's no new physics, just consistent application of what we've found.

I agree the 'instant/tiny' BB is nonsense. It was never intended to be taken seriously, particularly by Gamow.

You really must actually READ what I write Akinbo. Of course it's Galilean relativity, but as modified by the Lorentz factor when approaching relative c, which is AS ALWAYS FOUND!

The 'logical medium' that wasn't found then WAS found with the advent of space exploration. See my 2012 essay. Between stars it's called the ISM, and between galaxies the IGM, It's also called many other things by those scared of contradicting 'SR', the condensate, or the QV, or the dark energy field, both of which are ESSENTIAL' for the standard model of cosmology.

Between electrons the fluctuations propagate at c wrt the emitting electron on the dark energy condensate. It's different to the old 'ether' conception in that it CANNOT modulate (change) propagation speed. It has to condense matter (conjugate fermion pairs) to do that when compressed or disturbed. (Unruh, Higgs process etc).

I certainly don't subscribe to any present 'multiverse' theory. But I agree with the commonly expression that it's a logical necessity that this universe is finite, but the cosmos may not be. An implication is then infinitely many universes, as with galaxies in our own. The fractal model continued.

I'm sometimes made to feet truth is my ONLY friend! Then I meet my friends again. Glad you're one.

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

" ... where have you observed this uniform motion?"

As the measured speed of light in a vacuum.

" ... my greatest friend is Truth."

So is mine, though perhaps without the capitalization.

[deleted]

Akinbo, Tom,

"if no medium is possible, SR must stand" Really Akinbo? What makes the difference between a medium and an empty space that merely consist of distances between objects? A medium like for instance air has a position with respect to the objects. The objects can move relative to the point of reference that pinpoints their positions relative to that medium.

Confusion arose because since 1881 the physicists inferred from the insight that light is an electromagnetic wave that this wave must propagate within a medium. Instead of accepting this analogy refuted in 1881/87, they intended to rescue the medium hypothesis by means of the hypothesis of length contraction which eventually led to SR. Cannot the belonging Lorentz factor be interpreted as the behavior of resonance?

Tom, I am not sure whether you understood my objection against the neglect of the mutual logical exclusion between merely huge (finite) and truly infinite. I strongly disagree with maneuvers. Georg Cantor's transfinite alephs were altogether still different from what he called the infinitum aeternum sive Absolutum which he referred to God and His attributes. I see renormalization as hocus pocus rather than an acceptable solution.

Eckard

Thomas Ray

"Cannot the belonging Lorentz factor be interpreted as the behavior of resonance?"

No, Eckard. That would require a privileged observer frame. The Lorentz factor is described by a differential equation, in which observer frames are symmetric; i.e., each frame is valid. The Lorentz transformation reconciles the difference in measurement results, to a common space of uniform motion.

"Tom, I am not sure whether you understood my objection against the neglect of the mutual logical exclusion between merely huge (finite) and truly infinite. I strongly disagree with maneuvers. Georg Cantor's transfinite alephs were altogether still different from what he called the infinitum aeternum sive Absolutum which he referred to God and His attributes. I see renormalization as hocus pocus rather than an acceptable solution."

You are conflating Cantor's purely mathematical discovery with what motivates the physics of normalization. Two different things. Solutions to equations are normalized in linear transformations, or renormalized in the case of rotational symmetries, in order to reconcile the outcomes of finite physical phenomena with the infinities of mathematical results.

Infinity is not a problem for mathematics to handle. Infinities in physics are not actually measured quantities -- when one speaks of potential energy, it is never assigned a value of infinity, because that makes no physical sense; ditto for infinite mass. However, both infinite mass and infinite energy are represented by the continuous and infinite field influences of mass (gravity) and energy (electromagnetism).

Normalization of the quantum mechanical wave function assures us that the state vector evolves unitarily, just as we observe it to do; normalization does not assure us that the function is infinite and continuous. That is one major question that lies at the foundation of a unified field theory (or quantum gravity): are all the laws of physics normal, i.e., uniform throughout the universe?

Akinbo Ojo

Yes, Eckard, "if no medium is possible, SR must stand". If space is not infinitely divisible, if space is made of points that are not of zero dimension, if lines of zero breadth are physically impossible, if space (or as a compromise to relativitists, 'space-time') is said to be capable of vibrating so gravitational waves are propagated through it at c without any matter medium, then space (space-time) itself is a medium, capable of doing for light what relativitists say it now does for gravitational waves!

Tom, re: on the measured speed of light in a vacuum as an example of uniform motion...

Between points A and B on Earth by which we intend to measure that speed of light by finding transit time between points A and B on Earth of known distance, while the light is in transit to B, the Earth is spinning and rotating although B remains at same distance to A. An observer on the Sun looking at same point A, point B, the light and the path it followed from A to B will not agree with you that the light was moving uniformly from A to B in a straight line. Only the stationary Earth-based observer can agree with you that the path travelled was straight and uniform motion. Is there then still no privileged observer frames as you mentioned to Eckard, since both observers are not in agreement how light travelled from A to B? Does this not show motion of light may not always appear the same to ALL observers?

So perhaps, you want to take a second look at "Tom's 3 Postulates of SR", viz. 1. There is no relative speed. Special relativity is about uniform motion. 2. Therefore, if 'c/n' has any meaning at all, c/n = 1. 3. Special relativity does treat the cosmos as if nothing were moving (recall Galileo was confined to prison because of the false Authority's belief in non-motion); it is about rigid transformations between observer frames, to find out if they are not yet closed and complete..

Peter,

Our points of differences are narrow and as you point out 'logical media' are in abundance. A point of departure is your support for Lorentz transformation, while your way of explaining LT remains in fulfillment of Galilean transformation. LT and GT are mutually exclusive. LT admits of time dilation and length contraction. Perhaps, you cling to LT so as not to offend the establishment view. I will google 'non-linear optics' or 'Optical Breakdown' mode but I am sure these are just mechanisms to explain how Galilean transformation takes place between different frames of motion, and are not themselves LT.

Akinbo

pjackson

Tom,

I don't understand Joy's derivation because at the point mine simply produces the cosine^2 distribution at each detector geometrically (OAM at varying latitudes) Joy's goes off into exploding spheres and the complex mathematics the mathematicians can't agree about.

But you suggest; "The question is whether such self evidently strong correlations are manifestly local. Yours aren't. Just as Bell-Aspect proves."

I agree that's the question, but producing the curves independently at EACH local detector is of course "manifestly local". It seems you hadn't noticed that, but if you had please explain you argument as to how that can be 'non-local'.

Best wishes

Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »