• [deleted]

  • Post #21

Azzam

Length contraction was conceived of as being an actual alteration in the size of matter (particularly in one direction). It became explainable in terms of observation because of a number of confusions around the variables constitute and how they relate. However, in terms of the observation (seeing) of reality, as opposed to reality itself (which ought to be understood!), there may happen to be effects occurring which affect measurement. But, in trying to discern what that may or may not be, light must be considered as just another entity, moving. Which is what it is. It has no 'mysterious' properties, it just happens to be what enables us to see.

Paul

  • [deleted]

  • Post #22

Paul

Have you read my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

You will see what is the meaning of the length contraction according to the MSRT, it is depending on the the recent experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement. this explanation for the length contraction is different from Einstein depending on the observer is participating in formation the phenomenon, contradicted what was adopted in formulation of the SR.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #23

My essay 'The Variability of the Speed of Light' is representative of a body of work that redevelops physics theory differently from its historical development. The fundamentals of theory are redefined and higher level theory is built upon that new foundation. The guiding principle is that: Unity has always existed right from the beginning of the universe, and, that that unity should be clearly seen in physics theory right from its theoretical beginning.

It is presumed that this unity requires that there be a single cause for all effects for all time. In order to establish whether or not there is just one single cause, the theory is developed without introducing other multiple fundamental causes or forces. One is all that is implemented for the whole body of work thus far.

The essay puts forward the variation of the speed of light as that cause for all effects. The general body of work, from which the essay draws, has been accomplished while relying solely upon that cause. For example, there is no fundamental force of gravity, nor is there a property of electric charge. There are no other sources of cause beyond the variation of the speed of light.

The process i followed from the beginning for developing this approach to theory is represented in my essay in the section on 'Mass'. The process begins with: All properties whose existences are inferred from empirical evidence must be expressible and definable in the same terms as is that evidence. Distance and time are the properties in which empirical evidence is formed. The evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocity of objects. Velocity is expressed in terms of distance and time. All other properties are defined using combinations of distance and time only.

This practice prevents the introduction of arbitrary definitions. The first such arbitrary definition was the decision to make mass an indefinable property. It was not defined in terms of distance and time. Its units kilograms are not defined in terms of meters and seconds. therefore, it is introduced as a property that is not expressible in the same terms as is its empirical evidence. This act and its consequences permeate today's physics theory. This new theoretical approach removes both that act and its consequences. Almost all of theory is forced to change.

The body of work is still ongoing and quantum effects must still be accounted for. Some basic problems, such as establishing atomic electron energy levels has been done without the use of wave mechanics. There has been no need thus far to introduce a wave nature. Perhaps it will become needed at some point, but, it does not yet exist in this theoretical work. A mathematical basis for our concept of frequency is developed using only the photon model introduced in the essay. It appears as part of an energy equation that replaces Einstein's energy equation.

While many question remain to be answered, the body of work done thus far is extensive and self-contained using only one cause and only units of meters and seconds. The essay represents, in an introductory manner this new body of work. I can defend only the work that has been completed and presented publicly. There is plenty of that. It includes redefining electromagnetism, relativity theory, and thermodynamics at their introductory levels.

James

I am reposting this message because, even though I was logged in, supposedly, its first submission carries the name anonymous and appeared separated from my post above. This is where I intended for this message to show:

My essay 'The Variability of the Speed of Light' is representative of a body of work that redevelops physics theory differently from its historical development. The fundamentals of theory are redefined and higher level theory is built upon that new foundation. The guiding principle is that: Unity has always existed right from the beginning of the universe, and, that that unity should be clearly seen in physics theory right from its theoretical beginning.

It is presumed that this unity requires that there be a single cause for all effects for all time. In order to establish whether or not there is just one single cause, the theory is developed without introducing other multiple fundamental causes or forces. One is all that is implemented for the whole body of work thus far.

The essay puts forward the variation of the speed of light as that cause for all effects. The general body of work, from which the essay draws, has been accomplished while relying solely upon that cause. For example, there is no fundamental force of gravity, nor is there a property of electric charge. There are no other sources of cause beyond the variation of the speed of light.

The process i followed from the beginning for developing this approach to theory is represented in my essay in the section on 'Mass'. The process begins with: All properties whose existences are inferred from empirical evidence must be expressible and definable in the same terms as is that evidence. Distance and time are the properties in which empirical evidence is formed. The evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocity of objects. Velocity is expressed in terms of distance and time. All other properties are defined using combinations of distance and time only.

This practice prevents the introduction of arbitrary definitions. The first such arbitrary definition was the decision to make mass an indefinable property. It was not defined in terms of distance and time. Its units kilograms are not defined in terms of meters and seconds. therefore, it is introduced as a property that is not expressible in the same terms as is its empirical evidence. This act and its consequences permeate today's physics theory. This new theoretical approach removes both that act and its consequences. Almost all of theory is forced to change.

The body of work is still ongoing and quantum effects must still be accounted for. Some basic problems, such as establishing atomic electron energy levels has been done without the use of wave mechanics. There has been no need thus far to introduce a wave nature. Perhaps it will become needed at some point, but, it does not yet exist in this theoretical work. A mathematical basis for our concept of frequency is developed using only the photon model introduced in the essay. It appears as part of an energy equation that replaces Einstein's energy equation.

While many question remain to be answered, the body of work done thus far is extensive and self-contained using only one cause and only units of meters and seconds. The essay represents, in an introductory manner this new body of work. I can defend only the work that has been completed and presented publicly. There is plenty of that. It includes redefining electromagnetism, relativity theory, and thermodynamics at their introductory levels.

James

Hi Wilhelmus,

The work that my statement comes from does not have an electric charge. The magnitude of the universal contant we call electric charge became a measure of a universal period of time. It is connected directly to photons. It is the time period required for any photon, anywhere in the universe, to pass a given point. It is the only universal constant that my work includes. The mass of particles of matter is identified as the acceleration of light caused by each type of particle. It is only the acceleration value that occurs within one photon length of the particle.

That photon length is the length of the radius of the hydrogen atom. If light travels between the proton and the electron for the length of that radius, it will finish its trip in the universal increment of time mentioned above. Whether or not the photon actually has length is something that will wait until it is clear theoretically that it should not have length. In the meantime, assigning length to the photon accounts for a great many effects.

With regard to the photon having or not having mass, in my work there is a quantity of mass that becomes included in the photon energy equation. That value of mass is the value of the mass of the particle which gave the energy to the photon. The photon does not cause itself to accelerate as having mass might possibly indicate. So, I am not saying that a photon has mass, but, I am saying that its history of interaction with matter is recorded on it.

With regard to wavelength, as my message posted previous to this one explains, there has been no need for introducing a wave nature yet. A large body of work has been completed without it. Perhaps quantum effects will require its introduction, but, I have solved some fundamental quantum problems without it. I have nothing against the concept of wave nature. Rather, I am not accepting any theoretical ideas into my work that are not clearly and inescapably required. My work will show clear and ever-present unity for as long as it remains possible. Thank you for your message.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #26

Azzam

Yes, see over in your blog. I have not so much commented on what you say as such, but more on the essentials as to how reality occurs...and hence what can, by implication, be said, ie what can entanglement, wavefunction, etc, be (as opposed to hypothesis). I've also refrained from re-quoting what Einstein said about SR, etc.

Paul

Please continue this conversation over at Azzam's blog.

James

I am copying this message here because it adds to the explanation I have given about my work, part of which is introduced in my essay"

"Hi Wilhelmus,

The work that my statement comes from does not have an electric charge. The magnitude of the universal contant we call electric charge became a measure of a universal period of time. It is connected directly to photons. It is the time period required for any photon, anywhere in the universe, to pass a given point. It is the only universal constant that my work includes. The mass of particles of matter is identified as the acceleration of light caused by each type of particle. It is only the acceleration value that occurs within one photon length of the particle.

That photon length is the length of the radius of the hydrogen atom. If light travels between the proton and the electron for the length of that radius, it will finish its trip in the universal increment of time mentioned above. Whether or not the photon actually has length is something that will wait until it is clear theoretically that it should not have length. In the meantime, assigning length to the photon accounts for a great many effects.

With regard to the photon having or not having mass, in my work there is a quantity of mass that becomes included in the photon energy equation. That value of mass is the value of the mass of the particle which gave the energy to the photon. The photon does not cause itself to accelerate as having mass might possibly indicate. So, I am not saying that a photon has mass, but, I am saying that its history of interaction with matter is recorded on it.

With regard to wavelength, as my message posted previous to this one explains, there has been no need for introducing a wave nature yet. A large body of work has been completed without it. Perhaps quantum effects will require its introduction, but, I have solved some fundamental quantum problems without it. I have nothing against the concept of wave nature. Rather, I am not accepting any theoretical ideas into my work that are not clearly and inescapably required. My work will show clear and ever-present unity for as long as it remains possible. Thank you for your message.

James

Here is a link to more results, from this variable speed of light approach, pertaining to several thermodynamic properties: The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy. Clausius' discovery is explained beyond its mathematical expression. Its physical meaning is made clear. These results, along with the others mentioned thus far, demonstrate the power of continuity of fundamental theoretical unity. One 'given' and that is all that is needed.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #30

James

That is what I did do, note the first few words: "Yes, see over in your blog". Because although the points being made are relevant to what you are saying, I knew if I posted the response here, you would find a reason to moan, rather than addressing the points.

Paul

  • [deleted]

  • Post #31

Paul,

I noted it all:

"... I knew if I posted the response here, you would find a reason to moan, rather than addressing the points."

Just keep your points elswhere including this snide message.

James

To those who know physics: If you have a comment, whether negative or positive, this is the thread to please post it. My blog has become in need of a single thread where I present my case and others, who know physics, give me their opinions.

James

Hi James,

Just a brief note to say that, although I would love to study your essay and comment on it, I am far too engrossed into my own work at the moment to do proper justice to your hard work. I know, however, that -- right or wrong -- you have some truly original ideas, and I very much admire you for that. I also wish you best of luck with your efforts and hope that you succeed in your endeavours, both here and elsewhere.

With best wishes,

Joy

  • [deleted]

  • Post #34

PENTAGON STUFF:

As regards where CIG Theory states the conversion of mass to Space:

Equating energy to mass to space:

0.02762u = 25.7MeV = 14,952,942.08 pm cubed of space

(Mass) (Energy) (Space)

Can someone (Nuclear engineer?) take an arbitrary amount of mass of Plutonium, and convert it to the Spatial quantity per the above CIG Quantification, as though in a Nuclear Explosion (I hate nuclear explosions!).

Then, with the theoretical newly created Space (CIG), can you model the subsequent force of the wind velocities. Compare this theoretical wind velocity modeling data with that data on record (hidden in some Pentagon archives?), as regards nuclear explosions.

You will have to figure out the CIG volumes of newly created Space per the above quantification and what would be its inherent contribution to those wind forces. Computer modeling?

Please compare the wind data on record with the theoretical data offered by the equivalent CIG conversion and its affects. (i.e. Are the houses and trees and fine people blown down with the same intensity?).

The two should be near identical.

Lots of math here - way way over my head.

The confirmation of CIG Theory may be at stake!

Thanks

doug

Hi Joy,

Thank you for your kind message. I don't expect professionals to put in the time necessary to evaluate my work. I understand why that would be the case. My reference to 'those who know physics' was intended to try to keep at least one thread clear just in case someone 'who knows physics' did wish to say something to me. People like myself have to do their work themselves. The statements I make upfront such as 'no fundamental force of gravity' and 'no electric charge', etc. are on purpose as a flag to professionals. My point being that I do not want to waste professionals' time. It has been the best practice. I just keep producing results. Nonsense cannot produce sense. It is the results that will attract attention if they deserve attention. Working alone is not bad. It is often the setting that promotes creativity. Ideas get followed through with the only obstructions being their own deserved failings.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #36

Your essay challenges the assumption that the void of space, free space and that of a vacuum measured on the surface of the earth represent absolutely the same condition. The refractive index of 1 is assigned to light propagating in a vacuum on the earth surface. Your essay suggests that the refractive index far removed from the solar system can be less than 1.

I agree with your premise that the speed of light varies as it approaches matter, as the presence of matter changes the permittivity of the medium in which an electromagnetic (EM) wave is permitted to propagate. The question arises, "Where does matter, or more correctly, the influence of matter start and stop relative to an EM wave, or photon?" If it is the square of the distance from an aggregation of matter, a lot of odd spacecraft related phenomena can be readily explained.

    Dear Frank Makinson,

    Excellent message! On subject messages are rare.

    "Your essay challenges the assumption that the void of space, free space and that of a vacuum measured on the surface of the earth represent absolutely the same condition. The refractive index of 1 is assigned to light propagating in a vacuum on the earth surface. Your essay suggests that the refractive index far removed from the solar system can be less than 1."

    This is correct. The removal of the closest matter will cause a change, but, it is insignificant because of the tremendous amount of matter the remains near it. The speed of light will still be increasing with distance from the Earth even through the vacuum. The changes in the speed of light are of the magnitude of changes currently ascribed to the gravitational field. That is not much compared to the speed of light. The refractive index far removed from the solar system will be less than 1.

    "I agree with your premise that the speed of light varies as it approaches matter, as the presence of matter changes the permittivity of the medium in which an electromagnetic (EM) wave is permitted to propagate. The question arises, "Where does matter, or more correctly, the influence of matter start and stop relative to an EM wave, or photon?" If it is the square of the distance from an aggregation of matter, a lot of odd spacecraft related phenomena can be readily explained."

    The speed of light decreases inversly to the first power of distance from matter. However, the effects decrease inversly to the second power of distance from matter. The effects are due to the rate of change of the speed of light. The effects have no end in the same sense that gravity has no end to its reach. The variation of the speed of light replaces gravity.

    James

    Here is a result of applying the premises of always present unity and definitions that involve only the properties of empirical evidence:

    h=keC

    Where:

    h is Planck's constant

    k is Boltzmann's constant

    e is electric charge

    C is the speed of light

    The magnitudes these items are those of the mks system of units.

    This equation makes no sense to current physics theory. The units just don't match. After the units are corrected by removing arbitary indefinable units and all properties mentioned are defined using combinations of units of meters and seconds only, as set by their empirical evidence, the units match and the equation makes great sense. It is evidence of the existence of always present unity among the fundamentals of physics theory.

    James

    Regarding the equation h=keC:

    The equation contains four important fundamental constants. Electromagnetic radiation is represented by its speed. Electric charge is represented by itself. Molecular kinetic energy and temperature are represented by Boltzmann's constant. Planck's constant represents energy.

    Furthermore, relativity theory is represented by the speed of light. Electromagnetic theory is represented by electric charge. Molecular mechanics is represented by Boltzmann's constant. Planck's constant represents quantum mechanics. The fact that their magnitudes form a near equality challenges the credibility of their orthodox theoretical interpretations. In my work, it reveals new meaning.

    James

    Hi Azzam AlMosallami,

    Thank you for your message:

    "I think if we accept the variability of the speed of light in GR, then we must apply the concept on the SR because Einstein first formulate the SR, and basis on the SR he formulated GR. In my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001 I adopted that the light beam which is passing through a moving train for an observer stationary on the earth surface is equivalent to passing to a medium of refractive index greater than 1. I generalized this concept on GR in order to solve the Pioneer anomaly, the velocity of the light beam or any particle must also decreased when passing through the gravitational field for an observer faraway from this field. I got an exact solution for the Pioneer anomaly http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058"

    I say you are correct. I did the same except for one possible difference. I found no need for a gravitational field so long as the speed of light varied by slowing as it approaches the Earth. However, I do sometimes in short essays or messages refer to the gravitational field rather than try to explain the details of applying a variable speed of light to account for special relativity effects. Perhaps you do the same. I am studying your essay. It is very nice to communicate with you.

    James