Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

Viraj,

Yes, I consider it courtesy to read & reply. I did so on 28th Sept on your string (the 'blog' comments under your essay) to which you have not yet replied as you seem to have missed it. If you reply to that there and I miss it please flag it up here for me.

To explain my 'policy', I'll always try to respond to comments, and read the essays, otherwise my priorities are 1/ Titles seeming to disagree with my findings (valuable falsification), 2/ Titles of interest or I wish to learn more about, 3/ Titles that seem to agree with mine, and 4/ Authors I know do good quality work. I think I managed over 200, though many part speed-reading, which can 'bounce off' important concept without care.

That does mean I missed 2 in the top 10! but can now read and absorb them more thoroughly. I've been very impressed with the hight quality, running to many outside the top 100!

I note you have no orange bands on your replies, which means you're not 'logging in' (bottom left of page) to respond.

I look forward to your response.

Best wishes.

Peter

Jonathen

Thanks. It was designed to to help you stop and think, because the intellectual powers needed to assimilate each revised assumption and form the kit of epistemological elements into the full ontological construction are well beyond most of humankind. Most brains can hold 3 concepts at once and visualise interactions. This required EIGHT! and eight MODIFIED assumptions, then also kinetic EVOLUTIONS of the interactions.

Stops for review and assimilation were essential. And it was no good trying it all mathematically as maths is at the heart of why it has NOT been found before. Wire frame Cartesian systems CANNOT fully model motion or it's effects. It needs real 'planes' and 'bodies' (3D) as referred by Einstein, then complex 'time stepping' maths only just now being developed. You did very well catching more than just the 'glimpses' most do.

The underlying solution to CSL via the quanta is simple as Wheeler predicted. But getting physicists there from where they are at present is a mountain climb!

The astonishing thing was finding that the ontology of real inertial frames precisely matches the structure of Truth Propositional Logic!! (TPL)

In TPL, a 'proposition' may be co-joined to form a compound proposition, which may itself be a smaller part of a main proposition. Each compound part must be resolved within itself in sequence before it can be resolved with respect to the main proposition. But the main proposition may also be part of a compound proposition, which may be resolved 'locally' with the smaller compound parts remaining. This gives a nested hierarchical but mutually exclusive system of propositions, which can go in ad infinitum.

Now we just substitute real 3D 'inertial frames' for 'propositions' and that is the structure of space-time. Each is mutually exclusive (as Einstein's space s in motion within S) bounded by a 'membrane' to provide the acceleration mechanism, precisely as a 'fluid dynamic coupling' at ALL scales! ('fine structure' surface electron TZ). We've just sent some probes up to better explore Earth's.

This has major implications throughout physics. I've now looked at almost every inconsistency (scores of them) in science to test the model. Each time it fails to be falsified and resolves anomalies at will. It's infuriating. I almost feel I'm cursed, with the task of trying to drag the majority of physics 100 years back to reality! What chance?! All help gratefully accepted. You'd need to look beyond this tip of the 'iceberg' to the main body if interested. A number here who are like minded are interested in a large collaboration. If you really do grasp and agree the fundamental underlying mechanistic solution let me know.

I look forward to your 'more later'.

Best wishes

Peter

Judy

So incisive. Changing a ruling paradigm in physics is far easier than changing the orbit of the sun round our AGN, but may take a little time (I may have been optimistic last year suggesting 2020). There are many 'ideas' out there, no system of assessment, and all focussed on their own agenda's so 'new' truths struggle to emerge. Your 'headline news' may be after 40 years of subjugation, as was proved with quasicrystals.

Interesting point on what I call comprehension. See my reply to Jonathen above. I suspect you're right.

Someone said reaching PhD level gives you the right to be wrong, which is how I felt, not any right to be right. Many in physics seem to feel otherwise, or a superiority and right to ignore or condescend to fellow man. You must know that temptation. It's easy to give in to, but we must recognise it and the rot it brings to have a chance of stopping it.

'Exclusion'? Hmmm. No, I never felt I wanted to join a crowd as I'd only see what they saw. 'Non full time'? True I still have to run the consultancy and don't have to earn money from physics, but as an FRAS and APS member and spending twice the time on research and writing than most professors that may be arguable! No, time is tight (want to buy a yacht?) but I'm very happy where I am. Thanks for those kind and interesting thoughts.

And strictly it was a sonnet not a poem. The Chaucerian iambic pentameter is about as initially tricky compared to rhyming couplets as learning new assumptions is for anyone indoctrinated with old ones, so I thought it appropriate in this context. But just a bit of fun really to lighten things up. Glad you enjoyed it, and great to hear from you.

Best wishes

Peter

Pentcho.

Doppler shift is observed IN the new frame, by observer B, NOT by the stationary observer A watching the moving '3D block' of medium go past him. Same with sound. If you're moving with the ambulance you don't hear a Doppler shift. OK?

Observer A at rest with the original source in the background medium finds the light reaching him direct from it is doing c. Still OK?

But if A can then ALSO see a 'pulse' of that light moving through the block of moving medium going past him, he would see it doing APPARENT c+v or c-v. i.e. entirely intuitive. Still OK?

You may need to think about that carefully first, and clarify in your mind, that the 'c+v' is NOT as observed by the co-moving observer, who ALWAYS observes local c.

So the real equation is not as you suggest for observer B, at rest in the new co-moving frame. He sees c, but with f and lambda changed inversely.

So; f=c/L simply becomes f'=c/L'. Observer A, in the rest frame, DOES find the 'apparent c+v' but does NOT find any Doppler shift.

Observer A (if able to measure the frequency and lambda remotely but in relation to his own frame, which is tricky!) would find APPARENT f = c+v/L'. In other words, in his case, the frequency of waves passing him by doesn't change.

This has been proved experimentally at my local airport. Get a line of people 1m apart to walk past you at 3mph (or call it 'c' mph) and record the frequency.

Now stand beside a travellator and get then to do the same but stepping onto the travellator and continuing at c mph. You will find they have increased apparent speed, and increased wavelength (spacing), but pass you at precisely the same frequency!

This does take a modicum of intellect to initially absorb and assimilate, but I fully expect you to be able to succeed. It will be shocking to many devoted relativists, but remember the Trojan Horse virus secret, so please have a bit of discretion, which means don't go shouting about it and warning them in advance!

Peter

Eckard

Many thanks re; 'forerunner'. First, Steve is one of the few who understands almost completely. 2nd; I would say your 'knowledge' is not 'wrong', but understanding too incomplete to date to fully rationalise. I explain below, but 3rd; The 'forerunner' is simply the 2nd part of the 'birefringence' found by Raman. There was scant space for this, so to clarify; In some media (i.e. birefringent and diffuse matter) The emissions only interact progressively, so the part which has not yet coupled indeed carries on undelayed on the old axis (we call 'vector'). Subject to particle characteristics, i.e multiple spin types, we will find 3 (tri-refringence) or more axis at once. In space this process may take many kiloparsecs. The observed effects in that case are gradual 'curvature' of the light and weak 'gravitational' lensing, which is density dependent.

But now back to your; "speed of propagation refers to the medium but neither to the emitter nor to the receiver." Which is both entirely true and fully consistent with the above, but this will initially test your intellect!;

The immediate instantaneous emission is wrt the EMITTER. This is indeed however only as far as the transition zone (TZ) between the near and far field, (which I thank you for flagging up) because the 'medium' WITHIN the TZ (the near field) is in the same kinetic state as the emitter. The TZ is therefore the frame boundary. Thereafter the emitted 'signal' changes speed to c wrt the FAR FIELD, which is the medium OUTSIDE the TZ, which we call the 'Local Background' of the emittter, or the 'next frame up'.

The distance to the TZ may be less than a micron, or 100+km (Earth's bow shock), or 100+ au's ('AU' is now 'au' by the way) to the sun's heliosheath, or, for the galaxy, the Halo. Remember there may be infinitely many smaller spaces ('s') within each and every larger space ('S'), precisely as specified by Einstein (1952).

So Pentcho's emission theory is correct in a very local domain, but then also correct in lots more local domains (frames) at all scales, which may be DIFFERENT to the first. Re-emission is always at c. (I was delighted to find Dowdye's earlier consistent thesis, but rather after developing the DFM - so he's guilty of common anticipatory plageurism!)

The process is symmetrical, so a reflector is also an emitter. Light arrives at the fine structure TZ of the mirror, is changed to c wrt the mirror, is absorbed again and re-emitted at c wrt the mirror, but on re-negotiating the TZ does exactly what all other emissions do, changes to c wrt the medium. That explains one of the biggest inconsistencies in current theory (along with many others).

If that doesn't seem entirely logical after a couple of re-reads please do say why and I'll try to explain it better.

I've suggested a few verification experiments in the imminent Hadronic Jouranl Paper discussing Kantor and mirrors.

Best wishes

Peter

Pentcho

If you're not in their frame you see apparent c+v. Not 'real' c+v because their real (walking) speed in THEIR frame is still c. An observer at rest in that frame (standing on the travellator) would find their speed as c.

You cannot interact with them to find their real speed, wrt THEIR background frame, without yourself being at rest in that frame. If you stand beside the travellator you can therefore find NO Doppler shift, as you can only interact with people who remain in your frame. Remember, frames are now REAL physical spaces, with boundaries. The travellator and each person on it are at rest in their own frame, as you and the floor are. Measuring is a SAMPLING process, via a detector. Any light (or photons or people) MISSING the lens carry on at c, which is apparent c+v to the lens.

In your own scenario; the people are 'missing' you when you walk past them, so you find them at apparent c+v, though their real speed remains c.

If you revert to light waves, which we are considering, when you start moving and your lens medium interacts, the wavelength immediately compresses.

This is the poorly understood quantum interaction and effect which has kept us 'blinded' from logically explaining the effects we observe. We've just assumed our brains are on the surface of our eyes (I suppose many may be so!).

If you envisage a foot long optic nerve, with a giant lens a foot in front of your nose, you may then see that the light waves compress when you start walking forward. Lambda and frequency both then change inversely which changes the speed to conserve c in the new frame.

The simple way to assimilate it may be to remember the different cases for each observer frame. Observers in all frames (speeds) other than the local background propagation speed may see arbitrary APPARENT speeds c+v and c-v, all subject to the individual speed v of each observer. (if they can see anything at all in that other frame). Only if one then looks straight at the original source do they then interact so always find c.

It does take some rehearsal via applications to overcome our well embedded contrary assumptions.

Barlow's sums work just fine. But as pointed out in some good essays here, the simplified mathematical abstraction does't necessarily bear any relation to the real underlying physical mechanism. Cartesian systems can't model motion any more than geometry can, because vector space is geometrical, and motion is an invalid concept in geometry. Complete 'space-time geometries' move (associated with all matter), and are physically bounded.

See my response to Eckard below which may also help clarify the process and ontological construction. A careful re-read of the essay is also essential as no human brain can assimilate such a 'different', so apparently complex, set of mechanisms in one easy go.

Peter

Peter

Pentcho

Yes, but you must specify WHICH waves, because the interaction creates a 2nd set, which are the ones the processor (or brain) 'times' to find f. We may term there 'refracted' waves R.

The incident waves 'I' are those which include both the approaching waves and those 'passing by' the lens (also then equivalent to 'forerunners'). "Accordingly, the speed of" THOSE 'I' "waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L"

Te speed of the R waves, which is the only ones we can directly 'time' to find frequency, is then c' = X/L'.

There is a simple proof, which also resolves anomalies; If the light (R) passes through the moving medium (i.e. lens) and escapes back into the incident medium, it is found to have been delayed, not just due to n, but also by medium vt, giving the interferometer fringe shift.

Peter

Eckard

Yes. Observed jet pulse speeds are