Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

[deleted] · Sep 22, 2012

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

Pentcho Valev

PPeter Jackson · Sep 22, 2012

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] · Sep 22, 2012

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

PPeter Jackson · Sep 23, 2012

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

EEdwin Klingman · Sep 24, 2012

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

JJames Dwyer · Sep 24, 2012

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

PPeter Jackson · Sep 25, 2012

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] · Sep 25, 2012

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

PPeter Jackson · Sep 25, 2012

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

PPeter Jackson · Sep 26, 2012

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

JJames Dwyer · Sep 26, 2012

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

[deleted] · Sep 26, 2012

Jim

If someone resists accessing actual evidence but proposes something contrary that's fine, but that's called speculation not science and I'm sure you can judge how its veracity is viewed.

You now 'urge me to consider' evidence assuming I have not done so for both that and far better evidence very closely for some years. You assumption is incorrect. But I also still don't agree your characterisation (last para). I'll do my best again to explain, as long as you don't call it 'lecturing'!

When galaxies and clusters collide, let's say the 'fine structure' (whatever) surrounds them is disturbed. This is invariably found as more dense CO and molecular gas towards the barycentre and a more diffuse electron based plasma (when detectable) towards the outer halo (or IGM/ICM). (They overlap because one begets the other!) Now I'm sorry, but if you've studied as much data and research as I have over the years you will find a clear pattern, consistent with the following description (and I'm not just spouting any mainstream 'dark matter' theories).

The molecular gas clouds are only concentrated in different parts of space to the plasma because they 'started' in different parts of space so are affected differently. Now the lensing found does not 'JUST' correlate with the visible molecular gas, at WHATEVER wavelength it scatters light (normally investigated at multiple frequencies). All the condensed matter there is assumed to have gravitational potential according to it's mass just like it does in our back yard. The change in motions of the visible matter correlates with this basis and provides an approximation of density of the NON visible 'clouds'. These are normally thus considered as 'dark matter', either as some exotic new particles or not. I propose not, because the densities are consistent with electron densities found locally (The Kingsley Figure 2 I referred you to, and the international standard ionospheric model at up to 10^14 particles/cm^-3 at shocks).

Now there is also other evidence, quite complex, but lensing is the main and largely independent second 'check'. It quite simply does not correlate with the visible gas, at least 'alone'. But now we get into interpretation'. Mainstream uses 'curved space-time' to estimate galaxy mass, but gets anomalously high masses. More and more (inconsistent with relativity) use my method of diffraction by matter for lensing (as smaller lenses) which is more consistent with the REAL data (Sauron, Atlas 3D etc).

The lensing then simply implies spatial distribution and density. Most of mainstream just call it 'dark matter density', but that just means it's not visible and includes a broad church of options. Plasma 'scatters' far better directionally than gas (that's what 'self focussing' means). So that's why the gas visible at X ray has no effect on lensing, which is indeed a proof of the plasma thesis. (Unless you really believe the nearby galaxy cluster 'bends' a pure vacuum - as current mainstream expects us to, but that gas does not).

Now I've tried other models which don't work, and tried for some time to falsify (NOT verify!) this, but failed. Yet I still have an open mind.

Now none of this has much to do with my essay, which just exposes the underlying quantum mechanism the 'particle' based lensing implies, and more than a handful of other anomalies. But you did ask.

I'm sorry if your beliefs and Mario's thesis are different, that's fine let them be if you prefer, and as I recall I have no problem with any other parts, but I don't believe in hiding from inconvenient scientific truths, and hope you're the same.

Peter

JJames Dwyer · Sep 27, 2012

Peter,

We're now discussing my claim that the separation of lensing effects and x-ray emitting intracluster media falsifies your assertion that the effects attributed to dark matter can be attributed to plasmas. Please do Mario the favor of excluding remarks about him from this discussion, as he has made no such claims and in fact I've had no discussions with Mario about this claim of mine. He has nothing to do with this discussion - this is just between you and me.

Secondly, as I have provided several sources that conclude that the separation of lensing effects from x-ray emitting gases in high velocity galaxy collisions provides evidence for the existence of enormous masses of not just 'non-visible' matter but effectively non-interacting non-baryonic, weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). Please see Chandra posting. This is not just 'little old me' making this claim, it seems to be the consensus "mainstream" astrophysical community.

As I understand, 'undisturbed' galaxy cluster morphology can be generalized as tending towards a spherical distribution of mass centered around a common center of mass, generally coincident with the geometric center of the cluster. There the gaseous intracluster medium is densest and hottest, emitting high energy x-rays. There is also often an enormous galaxy located near the center of mass.

The consensus interpretation of collided galaxy clusters, as I understand, is that the disperse gasses comprised of baryonic particles physically interact upon collision, absorbing their momentum slowing their forward motion.

It is thought that the colliding clusters' sparse galaxies do not physically interact - their momentum allows each group of galaxies to continue their established relative motion until gravitation eventually slows their progress.

The gravitational lensing effects of collided galaxy clusters are typically coincident with the location of the two separated groups of galaxies. However, since the collective mass estimated for the galaxies is thought to be insufficient to produce the identified weak gravitational lensing effects, it is presumed that enormous amounts of dark matter coincident with the galaxies is contributing most of the mass necessary to produce the identified gravitational lensing effects.

It is crucial to understand that the inferred dark matter could only be coincident with the two groups of non-interacting galaxies if the dark matter was also non-interacting. The only interaction that could have occurred between the two groups of galaxies and any possible dark matter was gravitational.

The principal requirement for the inferred dark matter is that it could only have gravitationally interacted with any of the clusters' mass upon collision. As I understand, the p[articles of colliding plasma clouds would physically interact much like the hot gases in the intracluster medium - their forward progress could not have continued such that they would located coincidentally with the sparse, non-interacting galaxies.

If you can explain how ionized gas or plasma particles within the two colliding galaxy clusters could have avoided all physical interaction with other disperse particles, allowing their momentum to carry them along with the clusters' galaxies, I'd be very happy to try to understand.

Sincerely, Jim

JJames Dwyer · Sep 27, 2012