Tom,

"What am I missing?"

You aren't missing anything. You have been the first ever to put some meat on the bone of conention. Thank you. What is missing, beyond the possibility that I am just plain wrong, are two things. One is the parts I have not mentioned. The other is the host of parts I don't know yet. In discussions of established theory one can very often jump around in discussion by refering to known work. I can't do that. So, I find things to say that sort of work well in their own limited context. I rely on results to say for themselves that "Nonsense cannot produce us." That doesn't prove that my extensive radical changes to theory are correct, but, I think it may say something important to theoretical physicists.

Thank you for both reading and critiquing the essay. No you shouldn't put in more of your time on this. You have already provided excellent input. I can't accomplish much in forum messages either. I will wait for the next opportunity. In the meantime, you have helped. One last note, just for the purpose of mentioning it, one of the main missing parts that I have avoided introducing is that, in the work presented at my website, mass is not only positive acceleration. It is also negative acceleration. In short, protons have positive acceleration of light and electrons have negative acceleration of light. Polarity is a property of mass.

The absolute magnitudes of the accelerations of light identified with protons and electrons are not equal. They do though combine into nuetrality. Neutrality is represented by C. I am not making nor can I make the argument in favor of this at this time. Still though, it has had me searching for empirical evidence to support it. I haven't yet found it but I expect my treatment of electrons to be either supported by or debunked by evidence that the speed of light is or is not greater than C in the presence of electrons only. I need greater than C. Ideally, if the electrons formed a dense gas with no other influences from other matter present, the increase in the speed of light would be many times higher.

You have done enough and I thank you for it.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #100

Tom

No doubt this will not be welcomed, but the point being "missed" is, what has light got to do with it? And the answer is: nothing. Light, as in c, just got introduced into the equations because it is a constant (which it is when you define it as such, ie in vacuo), ie it was a measurement tool. It first began as an alternative to distance in expressing timing (section 1 1905)

Paul

  • [deleted]

  • Post #102

Hi James,

I think you hit on the central question of consciousness in physics: "I rely on results to say for themselves that 'Nonsense cannot produce us.'"

From previous discussions, I take it that you identify "nonsense" with randomness (as I expect most people do). Fact is, though, we don't have any sure means of distinguishing random from pseudo-random. I'm thinking of Einstein contemplating Brownian motion, and correctly predicting the source of apparently random motion as collisions between the Brownian particles and energetic atomic particles. Once one knows how that observed motion is randomized, can one say that it is truly random? Well, aren't the atomic motions random as well? -- what has one explained, if not a painfully obvious tautology that the source of random motion is random motion?

Thing is, though, if the source of randomness is everywhere, there is no true randomness anywhere. Why so? Imagine, from where you stand right now, that everything around you in your 3-dimensional world is collapsing instantaneously into a 2-dimension plane -- and being sucked into one single point on the horizon while you observe. There are mathematical ways to describe this 3-dimensional reality as a projection of 4-dimensional information onto a 2-dimensional plane (e.g., my topological explanation in ICCS 2006, as a continuous backward-forward projection between S^1 and S^3, and in the holographic principle.

Then consider the Joy Christian framework that converts random events into determined outcomes; i.e., the extra degree of global freedom that nature imparts instantaneously with each freely observer-chosen measurement event, predicts quantum mechanical correlations as 100% locally real and deterministic.

Einstein employed what he coined as "Mach's principle" to frame general relativity. Mach -- the true relativist -- had proposed that the motion of all bodies is dependent on the instantaneous state of motion of every other body. Mach's view is pure relativity, because space plays no role. Einstein shows that spacetime -- a physically real, independent phenomenon -- mediates that motion. Einstein's theory is actually modified relativity, because it introduces an absolute global standard of measurement by which we give up instantaneity in favor of local reality.

So one does not have to accept that "nonsense produced us" if one can accept that random events are purposeful expressions of an infinitely varied and creative universe. With that realization, consciousness inheres in every particle and every system of particles, producing us and everything else.

Tom

  • [deleted]

  • Post #103

I must have been logged off.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Nonsense in the context of my message means that I interjected something into physics theory that has no chance of being correct nor of exhibiting signs of meaning or purpose. That there is no logical connection between what I add and previous work that proved useful. Examples of such possible nonsensical changes are to remove electric charge, to remove gravity, to accept light as a variable everywhere even in actual space as opposed to free-space.

If any one of these changes has no logical connection to empirical evidence and has no correlation with established physics theory then there should be no resulting useful results. There is the extremely unlikely possibility that one might accidentally appear to give a useful result, but not multiple cases for that change nor in conjunction and combination with the other changes that I have adopted.

It is possible to adopt different useful interpretations. I consider the two choices of making mass an indefinable property and of making it a definable property reasonable conclusions. Both can be expected to produce useful results. At some point though, important differences in results will begin to matter greatly. The major difference, in my opinion, is that the wrong choice interjects disunity into physics theory. That disunity will not be removable until that first choice is changed. If the choice is not changed, then disunity will become intollerable at some point so that physics theory cannot continue to advance.

That is when inventions are introduced by theorists: "What can I add that will achieve the appearance of unity?" The added invented property will not itself be detectable. The disunited properties that made need of the invented property will then be used to indirectly prove the existence of the undetectable property. Today's theoretical physics has many such invented properties.

My reason for insisting that all properties inferred to exist from empirical evidence must be definable in terms of that evidence is that: A direct clear connection to empirical evidence is the best guard against making inferior choices. If you look at my definitions replacing Maxwell's equations First Essay I expect that you might see that replacing electric charge with a fundamental increment of time does produce useful results. The fields are gone. The resulting equatons are expressible in the same terms as is empirical evidence. The last step to be added is to replace energy with force and distance and to replace momentum with force and time.

If that result is not convincing and still allows for random chance to have produced a 'meaningful looking' result, then the reader should consider all the other meaningful results that are provided in that same essay. I began my essays with that first one filled with results because they point very strongly to something occurring that cannot be nonsense.

My general meaning of random is no meaning. Even the billiard ball types of example, while being useful simulations for visualizing randomness, are not truly random. In true randomeness there is no way for billiard balls to bounce off one another. That act of bouncing shows that a useful property with meaning has been interjected into the example. Anything concluded from that example is not an accurate appraisal of the consequences of randomnes.

My choice for the central question or focus point for consciousness is our ability to find, arrange, interpret, and attach meaning to that wild storm of photons, and, to turn that meaning into a useful picture so that we imagine that we see the universe operating, and, to do this lightning quick over and over with a very high degree of accuracy. This act, and any part of it, is not possible without our already having access to meanings stored within ourselves. It cannot be acquired. No new step can have any meaning unless we give it to it.

James

Tom,

Adding to my previous message: I should have made clear that consistent useful results from different chosen paths indicates a strong possibility that there are more than one path to choose. When I said earlier that what I have presented in my essays should attract the attention of theoretical physicists, I meant that the possibility of two or more useful paths puts anyone's chosen path at risk for resulting from the wrong choice.

I keep pointing to the definition of mass as one vulnerable choice. The others include electric charge, temperature, and mutiple fields. Those multiple fields, I think are the most apparent evidence that theoretical physics has introduced inventions to substitute either for lack of knowledge or to force the appearance of unity. The choice for making mass an indefinable property substituted for lack of knowledge. The same holds for temperature and electric charge.

At least that is my view. I guess I have said more than enough to turn professionals off; however, the results will keep coming and they will continue to all be clearly linked together through fundamental unity.

James

Tom and Frank,

Things have come to a halt here and that is fine. You two have given me the most worthwhile messages with regard to excellent challenges. I will only be on the Internet intermittingly for the next few weeks. During that time I will write responses because your opinions are welcome again. Tom your last challenging message had good detail to it. I will be showing how some of those potential problems do not occur from my point of view. Anyway, they need tested. Thank you both.

I have only rated two essays thus far. I will wait until I can be active again before posting any evaluations or resume ratings.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #107

James

Just to let you know an historical information. In his articles of 1911 and 1915-16 Einstein already knew that the speed of light was not constant. He was aware that the second postulate of special relativity must be abandoned for non-inertial frames of reference (i.e. for gravitational fields). Einstein knew that the only way that light could bend near a massive object is by changing the speed of the wave fronts (assuming spherical waves). Thus the speed of light has been known NOT to be constant for about 100 years. However, for practical purposes old theorists keep it or assume it to be a universal constant, this is what most people believe today.

Israel

    James,

    If your theory is right, does it not affect distance and time measurements of distances to other galaxies and the age of the universe, etc.?

    Jim

      Israel

      Brilliant. Somebody else who knows the facts. Indeed, in 1905, he already knew that because he wrote when describing the two posulates: "only apparently irreconcilable", because in 1905 light is in vacuo, matter is not, so the two cannot co-exist. In SR both are in vacuo, in GR nothing is. Israel, please do not respond here, if you want to discuss further, come across to my essay, which is not about that, but there is a post on there which explains that (13/7 11.24)

      Paul

      James

      That's simple 'truth functional logic'. Examples can confuse as well as confirm. The basic rules of logic are quite simple and consistent.

      Considering this as a 'compound proposition' in the 'Propositional Dynamic Logic' (PDL) which I invoke in my essay, it is a truth that; any compound proposition may be a part of another compound proposition which itself may be part of another compound proposition, ad infinitum (in fact "Infinitely many" -AE and HM). This structure is consistent with Special Relativity as 'nested' kinetic states, or Einstein's 'space 's' moving within larger space 'S', etc. etc also ad-infinitum. In this case all backgrounds are frames with their own local background. = Local reality, all precisely as Joy Christian suggests.

      As Boscovich first found, agreed by Descartes etc, matter is non zero spatially, and spaces, thus the states of motion they are in, are 'mutually exclusive'. I suggest this ontology can lift all the paradoxes from SR. Thoughts?

      I hope to re-read your essay again soon and comment.

      Best wishes.

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #111

      James,

      I agree with your contention that the speed of light will vary as it approaches a mass, the larger the mass the larger the variation. I just posted a response on Peter Jackson's topic (1330) which reiterates why I support your speed of light variability. I provided information that I had not previously put in your forum topic. see my 1330 post (Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 17:53 GMT)

        Hi Frank,

        Thank you for your message. My current Internet connection is minimal and unreliable. I will read your messages. My responses will be intermittent. Perhaps days apart for the next two weeks. I have solutions that pertain to putting mass as the acceleration of light that have not yet been presented here. One has to do with predicting the radius of the hydrogen atom using only the masses of the proton and electron. When I have a reliable connection I will say more about this. Thank you again.

        James

        Hi James,

        Your observation is correct from my point of view. The only point that I will make at this time is that my approach does indicate that the age of the universe is much older than current projections. I will respond more fully at a later time. Thank you for your message.

        James

        Hi Israel,

        Please give the quotes along with your interpretations of them pointing out specific words and their usage. Just want to respond knowing that we are communicating accurately. Thank you.

        James

        • [deleted]

        • Post #115

        The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter): f=c/L. An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L': f'=c'/L'.

        James, could you please answer the following questions: c'=? L'=?

        My answers: c'=c(1+gh/c^2) ; L'=L

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        Hi James

        As I mentioned before you can find the whole information in his articles of 1911 and 1916. There are many myths and misunderstandings among the physics community in relation to both the second postulate of special relativity and Einstein's contribution to physics. This is because many historical facts are not included in textbooks. Textbooks usually show the condensed version of each theory. For instance, no book talks about the development of relativistic dynamics, in particular, the mass-energy relation. All contemporary textbooks attribute the whole of special relativity to Einstein which is not true at all. A similar situation occurs with electrodynamics which is basically attributed to Maxwell and Lorentz (implicit are Ampere, Ohm, Faraday, Gauss, etc. the pioneers of statics and dynamics). But unfortunately the history of physics has forgotten the tremendous contribution to electrodynamics of many authors such as Hertz, Fitzgerald, Larmor, Heaviside, Lodge, etc. All these researchers gave the shape to the classical electrodynamics of today.

        In his article of 1911 he stated the principle of equivalence (despite the fact that he never understood the why of such equivalence). There he arrived at an equation similar to yours (8) and he explicitly promulgate that the bending of light near a massive object is due to the fact that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field. I could notice that in essence your line of thought is the same as his. Then, in his famous article of 1916 (The foundations of the generalized theory of relativity) he mentioned the following at the end of the second part: "... Also we see immediately that the principle of the constancy of light-velocity MUST BE MODIFIED, for we recognize easily that the path of a ray of light with reference to K' must be, in general, curved, when light travels with a definite and constant velocity in a straight line with reference to K."

        Please take a look at my essay (THE PREFERRED SYSTEM OF REFERENCE RELOADED) where I discuss more about this issue. The corresponding references are provided as well.

        Good luck in the contest

        Israel

        6 days later

        Thanks James for reference to newphysicstheory.com in your Bio.

        It is an excellent piece of work and fairly extensive.

        As a PicoPhysicist, I say your proposition 'presence of matter causes light to slow as it approaches the matter' is a derivative conclusion from unary law in PicoPhysics. I have begun to expose concepts of PicoPhysics through an essay on Five Dimensions of universe .

        Look forward to your comments and evaluation of the Five Dimensions of universe .

        Thanks and Regards,

        Vijay Gupta

          Israel Omar Perez,

          Thank you for your reply. I will read your essay.

          James