Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

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

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

Viraj

I'm sorry but I'd thought the ball was 'back in your court' to respond to my Oct 1 post on my blog or to my earlier post on yours. I was also flat out fighting the slow system, reading essays and responding to (250!) posts. But my most sincere apologies must come for your rating, as I've checked, and did not indeed get to score your essay despite my genuine notification of intent. To explain; On first reads (part 'speed reading') I do a list and pencil notes, which on yours was '8-9'. I comment on good ones, but like to read again before scoring. The problem was I had a big 'log jam' at the end as the system slowed right down. I kept having to close and re-load the page as it froze. I had to prioritise those around the cusp, but was then online till 2.30 am UK time, until I fell asleep waiting for a page to change. I'm desperately sorry but yours was one of just a handful that didn't get scored. It seems even with a 9 it would still have been well out of contention. I may score all earlier next year (yours first, with the interest!)

Now to nitty gritty; I'll just zero in on areas of disagreement; You suggest AE was wrong borrowing Poincare's 'equivalence of all inertial reference frames.' I disagree, and find that consistent with Galileo's ship (all ships equivalent) and Maxwell's geometries, but each has a boundary zone where em waves change speed to the local c of each ship. All labs in all ships thus find c. If the window is open and the wind blows in at v, light does c/n with respect to (wrt) the air. If shut, the window glass re-emits it at c/n wrt each window.

You say; 'Nature's processes are inherently mathematical' which is fine, but can fool us if we forget there are underlying REAL processes. I hope you've read Wharton, Sycamore, McEachern and Schafly's excellent essays explaining why. Maths is abstraction, and we have no right to assume any algorithms we find approximate it's evolution accurately model natures far more complex mechanisms.

You agree with the 'simple idea' I identify, but fail to apply it's consequences. Wavelength lambda changing on frame transition is due to a REAL MECHANISM not some formula! This then resolves the biggest problem and paradox in physics of the 19th century, which was the reason SR was invented; CSL for all moving observers. The 'sister' problem of 'CSL irrespective of EMITTER motion' also then emerges by the same boundary mechanism. You should well understand this mechanism, as the boundary condition is equivalent to a 'fluid dynamic coupling.' One frame one side, the other on the other side, and turbulence between. Both sides particles re-emit absorbed em waves at c.

It may well then be true that; 'a fraction of energy in action is usurped to form an organic link with the background energy field.' That; 'DQ = (Mv/c).u is usurped to form the organic link with the background leaving Mvc(1 -u/c) for relative motion. But you then suggest 'This is the 'physical basis' of the Lorentz transformation.' You say; the photon loses energy to the field, and quantify it. Great, and important, but more important to understanding is How? What is the real mechanism? None of that is a real 'physical basis', but it is an equivalent mathematical model, as Lawrence points out, and if it fits with logical consistency and all observation (i.e. resolving paradoxes and anomalies) perhaps a closer match to the real mechanistic process.

So I disagree with your precise identification of the faults with the STR, and the solutions. I can say this because I provide a consistent logic for the (as observed) STR axioms. I do however entirely agree an energy draw in the boundary mechanism, which is also responsible for part of the cosmological redshift.

Don't ask me to judge any maths. There are many far better qualified. What does emerge however is that any 'general equation of motion of a particle' can only be wrt a local background! And lambda is not invariant on LT ('acceleration in non zero time').

Lastly, for now, I can't yet agree your derivation of atomic clock 'time dilation', because again 'speed' is only a relative concept. If it is an affect of relative acceleration then that might fit into the big picture. You should be aware that Hafele Keating was a crock. They were forced into an SR propaganda exercise to get published. I touch on that in this short article;

Apart from those matters, which I'd think are all resolvable, most concepts seem very consistent. I also need to better understand parts of your work, including the geometrical derivations, but think you do now also need to read my own essay again slowly to find the reasons for my comments above, which all form essential components of a consistent ontology. As with a boat, one part taken away, like the log hull fitting, means the whole lot sinks (as I found out courtesy of MDL a while ago).

Best wishes, and apologies again.

Peter