• [deleted]

  • Post #71

James,

My question on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 21:27 GMT was, "Are you suggesting that gravity is an electromagnetic (EM) force, and the field characteristics of light waves are the mechanism that represents the force of gravity?"

It seems your answer has gone full circle right back to my original question. In your Jul. 3, 2012 @ 14:36 GMT response you stated, "My contention will be that it is that slight difference in energies caused by the Earth's effect on the speed of light that produces the force of gravity."

If I eliminate the term field, which was in my original question, I can state your answer thus, "The Earth's effect is changing a characteristic of light waves, and this is the mechanism that represents the force of gravity."

Also, I contend you need a mechanism to transfer the instantaneous action at a distance. You introduced the term "light-field," and I have no idea what it is. It is something like a Higg's field, or, if we retrograde back a little, the aether?

Hi Frank,

The instantaneous action at a distance is not offered as something thrown in add-hoc. I know it has to look that way. I recognize that my own version of it could be in error. However, the existence of instantaneous action at a distance seems to me to be required by the existence of order in the universe. Order exists always everywhere meaning that control of the universe consists of instantaneous action at a distance.

For example, the speed of light is declared to be a universal constant in free space. Assuming that innumerable areas in the universe can be usefully approximated as free space, the existence of a universally constant speed of light in those areas demonstrates satisfactorily for me that the speed of light is controlled instantaneously over all distances. While this point seems clear to me, if it seems flawed, I would appreciate your opinion.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #73

Peter

Frequency/wave/etc, involve more than one, it must do in order to achieve the comparison. It might be the same physical entity, but it is in a different existent state, eg it has changed spatial position. In calibrating this, a reference is necessitated, which can be any option, but that must then be used consistently, in order to ensure comparability.

Paul

  • [deleted]

  • Post #74

James

"At the point at which mass enters theory, the only two existing properties are distance and time".

Time is not a property, there is no physical existence which corresponds with this. Alteration occurs, which can be identified by comparison, a change is thereby revealed. That change has substance (ie what changed) and frequency (ie how quickly it did so). The latter being calbrated by timing which compares rates of change irrespective of their substance.

Distance is not a property either. The physical existence of something can, when compared to something else, be conceptualised as occupying a spatial position, ie it has size and presence/footprint. So as a consequence it is a certain spatial distance from another thing, when so defined.

Paul

Paul,

Write your own essay. Fill your own blog with your misinformation.

James

A question on an employment form my daughter was filling out: All moops are tazzies. All tazzies are fazzies. Therefore, all moops are definitely fazzies. True or false?

James

    Hi Azzam,

    I do recognize the differences between our views. Our having differences does not mean that you must be wrong. I don't judge other ideas against my own. I judge them against my knowledge of accepted physics theory. While my ideas are different from yours in several respects, it doesn't matter. I haven't proven anything to anyone. I put my case out for others to view, but, until a great many others accept it, it remains my view. It is the case that I like my ideas.

    With regard to your theory. While there are several differences, the one that leaves me unconvinced is your idea that special relativity effects are joined with quantum effects partly through length contraction. Your treatment of length contraction involves instantaneous travel across a significant distance. I understand that you feel that the acceptance of this occurance meets the requirements of both special relativity and of quantum tunneling and perhaps entanglement, maybe other effects also.

    The first question I would seek an answer to: How does the observer in the train and the train suddenly move instantly for the remainder of their trip? There has to be either a convincing explanation for instantaneous travel or empirical evidence that it occurs. The evidence that may suggest that instantaneous travel at the quantum isn't obviously transferable to the macroscopic level of special relativity and the train example.

    You may respond here or, if you wish to respond at your blog, I will look for it there. Thank you for your message.

    James

    • [deleted]

    • Post #78

    James,

    Since you asked, here is my opinion. Instantaneous action at a distance is a fact of solar system orbital dynamics, and few people even attempt to explain the mechanism. I do not believe the influence of gravity has infinite speed, it just appears so in the short distances of our solar system. When I look at a spiral galaxy, I see how our planetary orbits would look like if the influence of gravity wasn't essentially instant within solar system distances.

    Some researchers have measured unexplained superluminal velocities in the near and far-field in electromagnetic (EM) propagation experiments. The Walker-Dual and Van Flandern articles get a lot of attention, but anomalous superluminal velocities were reported in papers by Ishii-Giakos in IEEE publications. A recent paper by Hively and Giakos in the International Journal of Signal and Imaging Systems Engineering (IJSISE), Volume 5 - Issue 1 - 2012, revisited the superluminal issue.

    Toward a more complete electrodynamic theory

    The following quote from the article should get more attention: "A non-decaying longitudinal B-wave was observed, as shown in Fig. 3. This result follows from classical electrodynamics in conversion of the wave-guide modes to low-loss free-space propagation, see Giakos and Ishii (1993) and references therein. The observed longitudinal components do not decay according to the 1/R2 or 1/R3 with distance, but at a much slower rate."

    The orientation of the electrical and magnetic field vectors of light are transverse to the axis of propagation, thus they cannot present a force in the direction of propagation irrespective of how matter interacts with light, unless something can translate the fields to a different orientation. An electromagnetic wave that has one field aligned with the axis of propagation could be described as being longitudinally polarized. Optical researchers have actually produced photons with longitudinal field components, and these "L-photons" (newly coined term) are being exploited as optical tweezers in commercial devices.

    Your essay proposes that light photons are being altered to produce the force of gravity. I think you are close, but I think something like a L-photon is producing the gravity force, and it might even look like light. L-photons are detected using the same type detectors used for normal transverse field light photons.

    There were three assumption issues I considered for this essay contest, units of measure, the vacuum of space, and gravity. I have no publications supporting my views on the vacuum of space or gravity, but I do have an IEEE published article that describes how units of measure can be mathematically defined, thus, I went with that essay issue. I have an unpublished paper that describes how gravity propagates at what is termed the speed of light, and I provide a simple explanation, and the mechanism, how the influence of gravity is superluminal, once propagated.

    Your essay article breaks with the current assumption about the force of gravity, and I agree the current assumption is erroneous. However, any presentation of a new gravity theory has to consider the Newtonian gravity instantaneous influence at a distance, at least within solar system distances.

    Frank,

    I do not have a fuller 'gravity' response ready. My statements in my essay were meant to introduce the idea of the variation of light and its possible relationship to gravity. My intention in the essay was limited to pointing out that the equations I present can be read forward and backward. I propose that reading them backward may be the correct way to read them for physical meaning. What light loses in speed, falling objects gain.

    That proposed tradeoff appears to me to suggest that if I am going to credit only one cause for all effects, then it has to be the variation of light. It also suggests to me that there is reason to consider that there is no graviational field. Proving that is not within the purview of the essay.

    Beyond the essay, the best I can do is to extend that same idea into a fuller explanation. My effort to write a response for explaning how we might do without the gravitational field goes well beyond the presentation offerred in my essay and has me thinking that it should be its own future essay.

    I will offer one suggestion in response to your very helpful message. The photon model that I have been using participates in forming transverse electromagnetic waves that you mention, but, each individual photon is not an electromagnetic wave. To this point, my work on electromagnetism does not include a wave nature.

    If you find the time, you might look back at my entry for the first essay contest. It includes redefining Maxwell's equations into new forms. My work involves changing almost everything, so, explaining anything seems to balloon into unweildy messages. This is my fourth essay. Each essay that I write helps to fill in the picture. Individually they just plain fall short.

    I have begun to read the other essays. I have yours printed off and will be reading it today.

    James

    My essay is a part of a larger body of work. This is the fourth part enterred into FQXI essay competitions. While each essay attempts to accomplish some main point, not one stands alone. Furthermore, the full body of work is a work in progress. The goal of the work is to remove the assumptions of theoretical physics.

    I have argued that the first such assumption was to make mass an indefinable property. Thereore, that is the first assumption done away with. Mass is defined in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which its existence was inferred. All other assumptions are to be done away with in favor of establishing equations of physics that retain direct connection to emirical evidence. In this sense, it is a work of removing theory from physics.

    In my current essay, and in my essay in the last contest, I speak of a photon model. That model is very simple. It is treated as a type of very short pliable wire. A photon is of course not a piece of wire. The reason the wire type model even exists is that in order to remove the assumptions of theoretial physics I must start at the beginning. That beginning is simple and kept simple until empirical evidence requires complication to be introduced or added.

    I am still working through redefining the fundamenals of physics, therefore, the work, the model, and the math is simple and not representative of a completed work. Although, it is looking possible that with all the results that I have achieved thus far, that the model may not change much. Time and work will tell.

    James

    • [deleted]

    • Post #81

    James,

    Understand. It is necessary to limit how many related issues that go in a paper to keep it in a readable size.

    You might find Ed Unverricht's essay "Framework for a Classical Model of the Neutron, Proton, Electron and Photon" interesting in the way he presents the photon, page 8.

    Framework for a Classical Model

    • [deleted]

    • Post #82

    True. Moops are subsets of tazzies and tazzies are subsets of fazzies. Were you actually looking for an answer, or did I let my naivete suck me into something, again? :-)

    Tom

    Tom,

    I was looking for an answer. My daughter marked the answer as true, but, then came and asked me what I thought. After a moment I said that word 'definite' makes me hesitate, I think it may be false. She went off. I was still thinking it over and went to her to say that the examples I had thought of all satisfied the true answer. I was still searching for an exception. Meanwhile, she had changed the answer to false and submitted the application on the computer. Then she was concerned that she had it correct and I made her change it. I had to scramble to come up with some exceptional example. Here it is, does it work?:

    moops are letters of the alphabet that are also words.

    tazzies are letters of the alphabet.

    fazzies are all things with 26 parts.

    I told her that when the employer said she got the question wrong to give her or him that example as a response. What does anyone think?

    p.s. Tom, When she mentioned this problem to me it reminded me a a recent discussion, that should not be revived here, about a=b, b=c, therefore a=c. Ring a bell? That thought prompted me to think that it may be false.

    James

    To all who choose to rate my work,

    My opinions about and votes for the essays of others are unrelated to evaluations by the others of my own work. That is the way I always do it. Any opinions expressed are invited to be forthright. Those are the kind that count. Thank you all.

    James

    • [deleted]

    • Post #85

    James, your example makes the statement true. All words are made of letters of the alphabet, which has 26 elements. In that infamous example, even though it's always true that if A = B and B = C, then A = C, which is saying A = B = C, the application of the reasoning in that case was false. The actual algebra would be that when A = B, B = C. That's not the same statement, because the value of C is not dependent on the value of A, that is -- not linearly dependent, which is a requirement of the first case.

    The difference between "when" and "if" obviates simultaneity. An example would be, using your illustration, that if moops are random letters of the alphabet that do not form words, they are tazzies only when they do form words. Then even though a moop is always a member of the set called tazzy, and both are members of fazzy, a moop takes dichotomous values dependent on whether it forms a word or not when we shake all the letters and output a string. The ouput, IOW, is a discrete nonlinear result, from a range of continuous values.

    Tom

    Tom,

    I said letters that are also words. I was thinking of single letters just A and I. I guess I need to tell her 'single letters that are also words. You are helping.

    James

    • [deleted]

    • Post #87

    James,

    The problem as the employer phrased it, is linearly dependent. The state of being, of all three terms, implies equality: A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.

    One has to change the problem (A = A IFF A /= C). That is, when one says that a Moop is a random string and not a word, it is not a member of C (Fazzies). It is still a member of B (Tazzies).

    In other words, when one says a "set of 26 things" to include the letters of the (English) alphabet, they don't have to be ordered; neither do they have to be ordered to be Tazzies. They DO have to be ordered to be words, so only "Moop" (word) belongs to both B & C.

    It's interesting that you raise the issue of the word "a" as a single letter, as a member of the ordered sequence that we call "words," This is a problem that mathematicians have dealt with by introducing the axiom of choice (also known as Zorn's lemma among other things). If one allows a 1-letter word, your proposition is true in what is called the ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel plus the axiom of choice) set of axioms; it is untrue in what is called PA (Peano arithmetic). We always have to go back to our set of basic assumptions to answer "true-false" when using formal logic.

    It's pretty easy to get wrapped around the stem with this stuff.

    Tom

    Hi James,

    It's always good to see you participating in these contests. I hope that a number of other regulars are working on their entries for this year, as well as new participants.

    You probably know this, but the Pound-Rebka experiment at Harvard accurately measured light falling from the top of a tower to the bottom. Sometimes its hard to find data to test our theories against, but I think that this might be a good place for you to look, if you haven't already. Of course their goal was detecting the effect of gravity on the photon and they assumed the constant speed of light, but data is data, and I expect that the numbers they produced will fit into your own equations and can be interpreted in terms of your own assumptions.

    Aside from that fact, congratulations on the number of comments you have received on your essay. Are you trying to set the record this year?

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Edwin,

      I included the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment right from the start. I address it at my website. It showed only that frequency changes. It could not show whether or not light was constant or if it varied and if it varies which direction it varied in. The experiment, if done before general relativity, could have been used as evidence that light speed varies. I think that even today it could be interpreted as either proving or disproving general relativity. That's enough of what I think. You wrote a very diplomatic message, thank you. :)

      James

      • [deleted]

      • Post #90

      James,

      The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that, if f waves pass the emitter (on the top of a tower of height h) in a unit of time, f'=f(1+gh/c^2) waves pass the receiver on the ground in a unit of time. If the wavelength, L, has remained constant, we have c'=Lf'>c=Lf, that is, the speed of light has increased. A different conclusion can only be reached on the assumption that the wavelength varies in some way or another.

      Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com