Dear Peter,

I'm just now realizing that there is a way to experimentally verify the validity of one aspect of what you've written and what has been shown mathematically in my essay. Please see the recent post for details.

Steve

    Stephen

    Interesting "there's nothing preventing "apparent" motion faster than聽c", (your blog Wolfram link) when it seems such a big deal to most that they can't rationalise or assimilate it, or the important consequences.

    I've also had challenges about my use and definition of 'signal velocity', so the Sommerfeld and Brillouin use and 'definition' is helpful.

    There are indeed already a number of experiments verifying this, including the finding of light reflecting from a moving mirror at c wrt the vacuum not the mirror. I have no lab, but do let me know what you have in mind. I have suggested some other experiments in a paper on the Kantor falsification accepted and due out soon. Send me an email (address above) and I'll pop something through to discuss.

    Many thanks

    Peter

    Tom,

    I'd missed your post. Excellent question, but simple solution; The asymmetry is purely a Doppler shift of the 'distance' between emission/waves/photons. The total energy is thus conserved; i.e. If the new medium is in rapid motion towards the source, yes the re-emission at c uses less energy per emission, but the emissions (wave peaks) are closer together. This explains why blue light is more energetic. I wouldn't use the word 'accelerate' for light, but the effect is the same.

    Also, the mechanics CAN be symmetrical. Consider the boundary mechanism as a dynamic fluid coupling. One side of the fluid is at rest in one frame, the other side co-moving, so at rest in the other frame. The whole fluid 'body' in between is in turbulence (Navier-Stokes) due to the constant (M-Hydro-D) mixing process.

    Now as all electrons are essentially the same, with the same rate and type of 'spin', are they likely to re-emit charge energy at arbitrarily different speeds wrt themselves? or all at c? If 'Harmonic Resonance' is valid, so if at c set by the spin, (the only logical choice), then all light passing through the transition zone (TZ) either way can only emerge at the local c. No violation of any laws!. And it's true we "can't differentiate the phenonemon from a constant speed of light", but that's what we've been searching for, the SR postulates are now rendered logically derived direct from a quantum mechanism. That is a massive deal, it's Unification of the two sides of physics!

    The only asymmetry of the PMD (charge) delay comes with lateral relative motion, explaining a whole host of kinetic anomalies, and implementing curved space-time by confirming what Heisenberg suspected but couldn't rationalise, that uncertainty has something to do with diffraction. And all not only without needing 'ether', but also removing any bar to local 'ether' frames as part of the hierarchical system.

    There are vast implications not referred in the paper, and I was unambitious enough not to try to squeeze in any more detail of how gravity might emerge or the pre-big bang state. But all do agree with your (1 per universe) ultimate frame, and the invalidity of Bells great clanger (I just thought of that, is it original??)

    Best wishes

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #165

    Dear Peter,

    This is for your kind information that my recent article published yesterday in the 'arxiv' along with my two colleagues (http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3765) has, I feel,something to do with your DFM.

    I hope you grasp the significance of the article to your DFM and reply back.

    Best regards,

    Sreenath.

    Sreenath

    I'm delighted at the verification the new arxiv paper offers. This also seems consistent with the 1955 Jauch and Rohrlich (QED) verification of the relative energy loss from bremsstrahlung radiation from the 'Compton effect' of acceleration due to interaction. I had no room to include the Marmet quantification which was; 2.73x10^-21 (K^-2).

    Frankly I have not yet deeply considered the relevance or realtionships there or with my own work so your thought would be appreciated. How consistent do you think it may be with the interaction quantification in my essay?

    I might even slip a small citation of your derivation into my present main paper draft.

    Many thanks

    Peter

    Dear Peter

    Apologies - I have only just seen your message above. You always ask challenging and interesting questions. Alas my modus operandi is to work intermittently on various 'projects' - an idea in physics, a painting, some other project...and it takes me a lot of time to re-gather my wits for each new task! For me to understand birefringence in terms of my posited ether lattice will take some doing but if my theory works it "should" somehow explain the effect.

    As one of our colleagues in last year's contest used to sign off

    Have Fun... it is a good wish!

    Vladimir

    • [deleted]

    • Post #168

    Hi Peter,

    A nice overview of assumptions that are taken for granted and how they relate to the trouble with physics. It was a pleasure to read.

    Thanks for pointing out how assumption 5 relates to my essay. I show that objects are cut off from attaining the speed c via an unexpected quantum mechanical effect and not the Lorentz transform. But even more astounding special relativity is still intact.

    Thanks for visiting my essay blog and helping my cause.

    Good luck in the contest,

    Don L.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #169

    Peter,

    The frequency of the light waves as measured by a stationary observer is f=c/L, and by an observer moving with speed v towards the light source f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength. Also, in the frame of the moving observer, the formula f'=c'/L' is valid.

    These are textbook formulas - if you accept them, please answer the following questions:

    c' = ? ; L' = ?

    Thanks, Pentcho Valev

      • [deleted]

      • Post #170

      Heaven Breasts and Heaven Calculus

      http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0072

      Since the birth of mankind, human beings have been looking for the origin of life. The fact that human history is the history of warfare and cannibalism proves that humans have not identified their origin. Humanity is still in the dark phase of lower animals. Humans can see the phenomenon of life only on Earth, and humans' vision does not exceed the one of lower animals. However, it is a fact that human beings have inherited the most advanced gene of life. Humans should be able to answer the following questions: Is the Universe hierarchical? What is Heaven? Is Heaven the origin of life? Is Heaven a higher order of life? For more than a decade, I have done an in-depth study on barred galaxy structure. Today (September 17, 2012) I suddenly discovered that the characteristic structure of barred spiral galaxies resembles the breasts of human female essentially. If the rational structure conjecture presented in the article is proved then Sun must be a mirror of the universe, and mankind is exactly the image on earth of the Heaven.

      http://galaxyanatomy.com

      • [deleted]

      • Post #171

      You cannot derive c' and L' from f=c/L, f'=c'/L' and f'=(c+v)/L, can you Peter?

      Pentcho Valev

      Pentcho

      I can indeed. As f is a derivative, from f=c/L we may then find c = fL. We then consider the case, as found in reality, that on entering a new medium, wavelength L changes.

      Now there is more than one observer case, as I pointed out on your string. But to keep it simple to start with, for an observer who CHANGES frame (observes in the emitter frame K then accelerates into the detector frame K') we may consistently obtain delta L and delta f to give c' = f'L'. We also then have f'=c'/L'. In other words wavelength and frequency can change inversely which conserves local c. Which is precisely as we find with Doppler shift, but misinterpret as we forget f is a mathematical derivative using a 'speed' (and thus time) not a 'real' physical quality.

      In the other case of an observer who remains in the emitter frame, he will find apparent c+v (but not by actual interaction with the original emission).

      Logic must be applied to mathematics as well as to nature. In logic I claim my Mr Spock trumps your belief led Captain Jim!

      Peter

      PS; The case of an observer accelerating from detector frame K' to emitter frame K in the opposite direction to the light gets VERY interesting, he does not interact with the original light pulse at all (except when both are accelerating). can you now work out what speed he finds the PASSING pulses apparently doing (wrt him) both before and after accelerating? I admit is IS initially quite testing, but once grasped is far more intuitive than the present nonsense!

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #173

      Peter,

      You forget f'=(c+v)/L but that is the gist of the story. For all waves other than light waves, when the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, he finds that:

      - the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L

      - the speed of the waves shifts from c to c'=c+v

      - the wavelength does not change (L'=L)

      For light waves, the observer finds that:

      - the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L

      Since the measured frequency shifts in exactly the same way for all waves (light waves included), it is reasonable to conclude that the mechanism is the same: the shift in frequency is due to the shift in the speed of the waves. That is, for light waves, just like for any other waves:

      - the speed of the waves shifts from c to c'=c+v

      - the wavelength does not change (L'=L)

      Pentcho Valev

      Pentcho

      If you claim wavelength does not alter when moving between different and co-moving media then you are flying in the face of all observation.

      You are reverting to the old wrong assumption of considering frequency as a prime reality not a derivative, that has kept us in Einsteinia for 100 years. this competition is about identifying wrong embedded assumptions. That is yours.

      If you just TRY it the way I explained, you will find all paradoxes removed AND consistency with observation. That is what science it. Testing theorems not closing our minds and shouting old stuff dogmatically. You have not in any way falsified my, most falsifiable, theorem.

      By not doing so it is YOU who maintains the support what you claim to fight against. Why do you not do so? I suggest only because your 'beliefs' differ. Please try to do so.

      Peter

      Dear Peter,

      I've recently been finding comments on others threads that link to your work in a very positive manner. Congratulations! You seem to be making converts (as these are new names). That's great! And congratulations on your current ranking. It's a long hard slog, but your persistence seems to be paying off. Best of luck in this competition. I haven't yet ranked you, but am saving it for the end, when you may need it the most.

      Best,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        I repost here my response to Peter's comment, originally posted at Mario de Souza's essay blog, as Peter has done on my essay's blog...

        Peter,

        I can only take offense to statements such as "Your comments don't make sense, I assume as based on misunderstandings." I will respond more rationally.

        In relation to my comments (about the Bullet Cluster), they are entirely consistent with the referenced text, including the concluding statements:

        "But the dark matter present has not interacted with the cluster gas except by gravity. The clear separation of dark matter and gas clouds is considered direct evidence that dark matter exists."

        In fact, those statements conflict with your assertion that the gravitational lensing effects identified can easily be produced by the separated gas.

        IMO, the established interpretation falsifies your thesis that the effects attributed to dark matter are actually the product of dense plasmas. This interpretation is confirmed in a recent research reported in the ApJ states in its abstract:

        "Weak-lensing results for A1758N agree with previous weak-lensing results for clusters 1E0657-558 (Bullet cluster) and MACS J0025.4-1222, whose X-ray gas components were found to be largely separated from their clusters' gravitational potentials."

        Ref.: B. Ragozzine et al. "WEAK-LENSING RESULTS FOR THE MERGING CLUSTER A1758." ApJ 744 94 (Jan 10 2012). doi:10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/94. arXiv:1111.4983v2.

        The consensus explanation for the separation of colliding galaxy clusters' gaseous intracluster mediums (ICM) from their galaxies and (presumedly WIMP) dark matter (normally coincident with the ICM prior to collision) is that, when the relatively high velocity clusters meet, their effectively non-interacting sparse galaxies and (WIMP) dark matter proceed in the independent directions of their established momentum, while the disperse gaseous ICMs physically interact, producing "ram pressure" that largely absorbs their momentum.

        The separation of lensing effects from the gaseous ICMs (but not their galaxies) seems to falsify your assertion that the lensing effects are produced by the gaseous ICMs. BTW, It does not preclude the possibility that the clusters' galactic masses have been systematically underestimated, and that their gravitational potential alone produces the weak lensing effects.

        I'm aware that I do not have the expertise to fully evaluate Mario's thesis that the gaseous arms of spiral galaxies are produced from outflows of gas from the galactic center. That's why I've asked you to explain the data to me. However, you seem intent on merely dismissing any interpretation of observational data indicating that there are any outflows except the perpendicular polar jets produced by AGN. That, taken with your questionable assessment of other data convinces me that your evaluations cannot be relied upon.

        I'm sorry that I had to bring up important observational evidence that conflicts with you own proposal. However, insulting me is not appropriate - even if you cannot respond appropriately.

        Sincerely, Jim

          Edwin

          Much appreciated. I find it hard to comprehend that the simplest of ideas seems the most difficult for physicists to assimilate. As I've just posted to Georgina: That a pair of photons 'passing by' a lens which is moving towards the source have a different distance between them and speed to those (adjacent ones after) entering the lens medium and optical nerve. The massive implications still seem to be missed by those too indoctrinated with standard assumptions.

          To spell it out; This derives CSL for all observers from a quantum mechanism at the lens surface. This equals what Penrose termed the Holy Grail; The Unification of Physics.

          An ontology of frames emerges with the same hierchical structures as Logic (TFL) and PDL) and when it's applied elsewhere it's absolute power and completeness emerges, including in Cosmology. Yet it is still invisible to most. It's quite bemusing. I suppose, as the post below shows, we are only human, run by emotion and belief.

          Best wishes

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #179

          Hi Peter,

          I read your essay over the weekend and enjoyed it greatly. Julie and I are fighting the same corner with our essay, not only by insisting on the value of philosophy for arguments in physics, but also by using philosophy and ontology to reflect on the idea that space cannot 'really' be nothing. Of course our and your position goes the other way too, and discoveries in physics can have deep implications for philosophy. As you say in your sonnet, "Our physics needs ontology, philosophy needs nature."

          In our case we used the physical discoveries about the vacuum to redefine the notion of 'nothing', and by extrapolating from that were able to come up with our notion of "energeum" which fits the bill for a neutral monist stuff, which is something philosophers have been looking for for some time.

          The deep nature of energeum, and of space as a real medium as you have defended it to be, is going to be an interesting task to unravel. I believe that there is a good explanation for everything that exists or happens, and that there is no principled argument for why any of these explanations should be beyond the range of what science and philosophy working together can discover.

          Good luck in the competition!

          Regards and thanks,

          David

          David

          Thanks, the rise of maths over philosophy has had no success in fundamental advancement. I think it's an essential tool that must be improved, but no more than that. Also, and this has been missed, both must learn more from the rules and structure of logic.

          I propose an inertial frame is precisely equivalent to a proposition. It truth propositional logic (TPL) Propositions are discrete but hierarchical, so may be compound and 'nested'. Each compound proposition must be resolved within itself, then with respect to it's neighbour. It has no relevance to anything 'once removed'. i.e. OIt is REAL and LOCAL, with boundaries. Dynamic (Modal) logic follows that and applies it to kinetics ('interleafing'). Frames are then mutually exclusive, but as small as each electron (if in motion in it's LOCAL background).

          Steve Sycamore just posted a JJ Thompson quote;

          "... the super-dispersive property is due to the presence of the electron, in other words that the electron provides its own ether."

          I see no conflict with energeum, as the electrons are condensed from it's energy to implement change. The key is in the 'motion', which as a concept must be relative, i.e. change (between 1 and 0?). Does that fit OK with you?

          Peter

          Jim

          I'm now at a loss to understand your comments. Data must be consistently explained, as, when it's not, no support is given to theory. I tried to help, as asked, by identifying where the belief that radial disc outflows existed came from. It seemed you or Mario may have misinterpreted 'radial distribution' and/or 'velocity dispersion' as implying such motion so I explained their meanings. I'm quite flumoxed by your reaction and misinterpretation of my own comments, including that ALL matter interacts with em waves, but dispersion varies.

          It seems a problem with receptiveness to wide speculative theory in cosmology is a tendency among non astronomers to cite such views as 'evidence' of fact, when of course it is not. Only the data gives evidence. The PRJ's at least allow a certain standard to be relied on for credible citation, even if they do mainly promote the ruling paradigm.

          You've decided not to avail yourself of either data or most PRJ papers. That's fine, but it's not then reasonable for you to then accuse me of being wrong and insulting when I point out that the data itself does not accord with the theory. That is honest science!

          If you wish for an astronomers advice on facts, he should give you the best facts available. The problems come with interpretation, which I agree may be quite rotten to the core. But if the data does not fit your theory it can't be the data assumed wrong without rigorous alternative explanation. Right or wrong that's how it works. I'd assumed you didn't want your thesis to just be dismissed by astronomers. I really don't feel I can offer any more.

          Peter

          Perter,

          Thanks so much for another lecture, but it seems you are still ignoring the evidence provided by the separation of gravitational potential and x-ray emitting gasses in galaxy cluster mergers. Again, the consensus interpretation among professional astrophysicists seems to be that this provides clear evidence of dark matter's existence since the lensing effect attributed to it cannot be produced by the ICM.

          Also, please be aware that we have not been discussing the thesis in my essay at all - we've been discussing the thesis of Mario's essay. I think that Mario's thesis is valid and provides support for my thesis, but I already had supporting references in my essay for models producing observed spiral galaxy rotational characteristics without dark matter or modified gravity.

          I'd be more than happy to discuss the thesis of my essay any time you wish, but we have not been addressing astronomers' invalid expectations for spiral galaxy rotation that led to the erroneous requirement for galactic dark matter.

          Back to your thesis, I urge you to very carefully consider the evidence provided by the separation of gravitational potential and x-ray emitting gasses in observations of galaxy cluster collisions.

          Sincerely, Jim