Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

Steve,

Thanks. The strict rationalisation and consistency with empirical evidence is something I hope you warm to. I wish you well.

Peter

Paul,

Yes. You're not shy of repeating your consistent opinion. But it is also seems possible this may wear down a 'groove' from which the view of other aspects can be compromised.

Interesting that your view includes that the Electrodynamics of moving bodies is about "stillness". I agree with your points otherwise, and also with observers being 'at rest' in a local medium, (frame K) but also with most other matter in the universe in motion relatively K'+.

I also agree definitions of old theories are all 'red herrings' to more consistent ones. But if light 'refreshes' by interactions and scattering it can thus be 'changed', precisely as refraction, Yes?

It is the first part your item 3 which I find erroneous. Observation can only be by a lens, which can only be made of matter, and it cannot 'observe' without detection, ergo 'interaction'. All lenses have a refractive index, which is a constant. We cannot ignore the few consistent parts of current theory! There is no referencing problem with this model. All things move. Yes? Yet all lenses find light doing c once detected!!? I simply propose that this is not the massive problem imagined.

I've read your essay and will comment.

Peter

Eckard,

I think others will also find it demanding. I also hope my corrected version is posted.

I agree Cahill is very inconsistent, though found many truths. The big problem is that he assumes SR and contraction a priori to 'massage' all past results to then 'prove' SR. This is not logically consistent so can prove nothing.

In terms of the 'gas mode' I agree entirely that 'medium' and n are relevant in ALL cases, including what we call a vacuum, as sub atomic matter is still there (ions) at significant density, with an assignable state of motion, so modulating c locally by gradual extinction.

I disagree with his P8 comment, and his assumption re 'absolute motion', which is not empirically or logically consistent. Also of course a dense plasma (ion) medium is also n=1. He did get limited support from some of the many 'clutching at straws' but making the same fundamental errors; His work now seems mostly ignored, and correctly I believe.

M. Sato, Physics Essays 23,127 (2010)

R.T.Cahill and K. Kitto Apeiron, vol 10, n°2, April 2003, Progress in Physics 4 (2006) 73-92,

ArXiv:physics/0612201v2, 2 Jan 2007, M. Consoli, ArXiv:Physics/0310053, 13 October 2003.

V.V.Demjanov, Phys.Lett., A 374, 1110-1112 (2010)

Does that fully answer your question yet?

The resolution of the small residual 'ether motion' increasing with altitude is briefly explained on my last page, where the distances are too small for extinction to be 100% completed, and two frames exist, one non rotating, and the atmosphere itself within that rotating, explaining the remaining anomalies.

Is that comprehensible?

I look forward to you essay.

Peter

Georgina.

Thank you kindly. It will indeed take dedication and careful thought, I thank you for that commitment and look forward to your comments. A 'skim over' would miss over 90% of the implications.I did rather pack it in too tight without developing arguments fully, but all parts are essential to an ontological construction unifying QM and SR.

I've read you essay once and find us again very consistent. I look forward to a 2nd reading and discussion. It seems Paul has a different definition of 'subjective' to it's common use in science, which is implicit from his essay, appearing wholly contradictory but obviously not as understood by Paul, so apparent directly conflicting views may not really be so. I will try to tie that down in due course on Pauls string.

Best of luck

Peter

Avtar,

Thank you. I'm glad the kinetic basis for 'Quantum Relativity' and it's importance is understood by somebody at least, and I greatly look forward to reading your paper, which it sounds may be very consistent.

Peter

Frank,

I agree we hide from realism, such as any link between the many known qualities of the ISM and the likes of the Higgs field. I think very close to 'lossless propagation' but not quite, which may derive a degree of redshift to finally consign increasing expansion to where it belongs.

Yes, I agree entirely about Mars. They've also lost many others and nearly lost Huygens-Cassini last year. the cosmological model is clearly hopelessly wrong, but nobody dares tamper with the assumptions it's built on. The Mars ionosphere is weak compared to Earth's but they ignore it at their peril!

Peter

Thanks Eckard for the typo proofing. (readers see below). Also P8 Para's 2-3 make more sense as;

Assumption 7. 'Ballistic' Stellar Aberration. A hidden implicit sub-assumption is that the barycentric 'medium' does not exist, which confounds theory. If Lodge had known of the IAU Barycentric frame, and of KRR, in 1893 he would not have used his lab to represent the ECI frame, incorrectly disallowing Stellar Aberration from waves. Lodge assumed the 'path' of a 'ray' entering a spinning glass disc is 'dragged' by the glass, so giving aberration in the wrong direction (aberration is ahead of our orbital path). However, the rest frame of the glass, NOT the lab represents an observer on Earth. The optical axis is then reversed as in KRR8 (see Fig.4), not needing ballistics, and with a quantum mechanism deriving the SR postulates.

A connected assumption is of a single Earth centred frame. Kinetic only aberration uses the non-rotating ionospheric ECI frame, but there are TWO! Atmospheric refraction (greatest at longer optical paths near the horizon)13 and an additional kinetic rotational vector explains why local surface light speed is c/n. This 2nd 'frame' resolves the residual errors of laser lunar ranging and stellar aberration.14 Annihilation can't be 100% over short distances, leaving the birefringence found by Raman (1921) and explaining scintillation ('twinkling'), ellipticity and consistently low but non-zero interferometer results.

Peter

Edwin,

I do like the term "significant essay", thank you most humbly. I also agree you've picked out some very salient points.

In pure physics terms I think it important that we recognise the importance of assimilating the two ignored optical effects (page 8) into current theory. In combination they then allow the complete unification of physics in terms of logically explaining the postulates or SR directly with a quantum mechanism. I perhaps didn't labour this point enough as it has been consistently missed. Does it not come across?

And the illogicality and causality issue with the 'ballistic' refraction model, which would imply 'ripping' a section out of the causal wave plane and 'hinging' it so some light has to stop and other parts do more than c to 'catch up.' (Fig 3). Do the mega implications of that not emerge clearly?

I've just found my 'mutual exclusivity' axiom echoes Boscovich's 'axiom of Impenetrability', which is nice.

I was also pleased to find high consistency with your again excellent, essay, though yours is as densely packed as mine and I need a further read to properly extract all it's meaning.

Best of luck.

Peter

Vijay,

Thanks, increased density of dielectrics certainly occurs closer to massive bodies, and reduces em wave speed, but the main resolution of the anomalies and paradoxes emerges from the kinetic element. This has been 'hiding' behind Fresnel's n and poor ontological thought processes.

None the less It seems our theses are consistent and I look forward to reading yours.

Peter

Vladimir,

Thank you. Nothing indeed does not exist. I look forward to your further comments after your studies. I can probably provide more links if needed.

Yes, both GRIN lenses and Phase Array radar (etc.) systems are highly analogous with my 'rotation' and Figs (I assume you meant 3B and 4.). I didn't have room to include a reference, but for anyone interested an easy intro is here; http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/an14.en.html

This blows the whole assumptive basis of 'light Rays', 'light paths' and ray vectors' out of the water as not causal on refraction. This then allows the logic of physics to emerge. Indeed we have not yet found any actual mechanism or complete intuitive explanation for refraction! Yet most physicists will say 'yes of course we know how it works!!'

I think your essay may be the perfect 'previous chapter' to mine, and I'm impressed you resisted the temptation to cram your beautiful overview with too much, which I fear I have.

Best of luck

Peter

Joe

I hope the second meaning of the title also emerged. I also tried to make the last line as comprehensible as the first so I hope you got it? (See Frank's comments above). I'm not sure I ever understood any of Seinfeld so you are at an intellectual advantage.

I agree entirely about "one REAL unit of everything" particularly time. Paul seemed to miss the below too, so I'll elucidate, by analogy;

You and 2 mates synchronise 3 clocks, one takes one a long way away. Each is ticking at the same REAL time, so let's say they flash once a second. Now the distant one approaches you at half light speed. Your mate with it checks his watch and it is definitely running at the same unchanged speed, but Lo! The flashes of light that you observe as the clock approaches you are LESS than one second apart! What foul trickery is this? it is not. You are not seeing REAL time, because you cannot comply with the rules of 'Proper Time' (to do so you need to be 'moving' at the same speed as the clock).

Your other mate now flies off in the other direction at half c. His clock still emits the flashes at REAL 1 second intervals, yet, aghast! they are now received by you at much longer intervals. Is time now 'dilated'!!??

Of course not. You are again not seeing REAL time because the position of the emitter changes between emissions and light has a finite propagation speed irrespective of the emitter. i.e. I am introducing 'APPARENT' time, in ALL CASES except where the observer is at rest with the emitter. Otherwise the flash sequence is 'Doppler shifted'. In reality there is only ever ONE absolute time! We can simply find it for any clock moving at v relative to us, the observer, by adding or subtracting v. Your kinetic reference is then always your own 'rest' state of inertial motion K.

Is that not far more simple and comprehensible than Seinfeld and the LT?

Peter

James

I'm humbled by your appreciation. I see science and humanities as simply aspects of one nature with a false division. I'm also making the point (Edwin spotted) that philosophy and science are both worse off for complete divorce.

But the main thrust is the content and evidence. I hope you do labour a little to rationalise the over dense points and massive implications. I've rewritten the penultimate page "Assumption 7; Aberration' paragraphs (3rd post down at the top here) to hopefully make more sense. (I'd 'over pruned' it to meet the limit!).

I recall I liked your effort last year and will try to read this years soon.

best wishes

Peter