Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

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

Hi Raf.

Far far simpler than that I suggest. The Doppler effect simply compresses the waves due to the motion of the medium during the interaction.

What nobody has ever bothered to do in the past is stop and think through the mechanism and effects of that.

Mechanism: Absorption at relative c+v closing speed, re-emission at new locl c.

Effects; CSL, and the Postulates of SR proved.

It is only the problematic assumption of 'no background frame' that is proved wrong. No 'absolute' frame is relevant locally, but there is always a local background frame.

So Pentcho's words are is correct, just not the previous understanding. To render everything consistent; Light DOES change speed, to the new local c.

I'll hope you may read my essay again, as it should now all make complete sense.

Best wishes

Peter

Pentcho

I agree, but all you'd be attacking is one 'interpretation' of SR, allowing it to transmorph as it does so well. Many already agree flight velocity dt anyway. To really nail it for good, the specific fundamental wrong assumption it uses must be identified and falsified.

The assumption is: 'There is no background frame'.

It is true that there is not one SINGLE or 'ABSOLUTE' background frame, but there IS a LOCAL background frame for all motion. This can then be shown consistent with ALL the effects SR was conceived to explain, but WITHOUT the paradoxes.

That is the only way SR can be nailed without it's exponents simply slipping away and re-interpreting the same old rubbish. The BETTER SOLUTION needs to be ready and standing complete and square in the path of the slithy toves. It needs help to be completed, not squabbling.

As I say, bashing our heads against the stone walls of the troglodyte citadel is one way, but there is a better way. Fancy doing some science?

Peter

Viraj

What your thesis finally says is far more important. You forget, scoring was over at midnight Eastern US time. That's why I was up past 2.30 am UK time trying to apply scores. The ability to score was switched off at that moment. I'm sorry, but there are also very many other good essays outside the top 35.

Let's get the complete ontology together, which should after all be our aim. I think your formulations may prove to be a useful or even key part once working within a full framework, possibly in a wide collaboration. I believe can get a couple of mathematicians to look over them. But first we'd need to ensure we fully comprehend each others thesis. I hope you can read mine again slowly and ask questions of the parts that don'rt seems to fit with yours.

best wishes

Peter

Eckard

This 'Nature' paper confirms the superluminal jets, which are seen as up to 9c. You only have to look at Wikipedia and the hundreds of papers (all by 'serious experts') http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v354/n6352/abs/354374a0.html

My last post somehow got 95% 'chopped!' I explained the two component causes. The first the well known Rees-Sciama effect (geometric) but with limited angular domain. The second; jet collimation. Simplified; Inside a flow of material is a rest frame, through which a flow may do max c, and a pulse in that flows rest frame may do max c etc. From the Hubble frame apparent 3c-6c is very common = local max c.

I'm surprised you're still questioning this as it's such common knowledge. Just type 'superluminal jets' into Google.

Your comments; 'vehimently argue' and 'defend myself' are a bit alien to me. As a scientist and Astronomer I can only 'point out' the evidence and 'explain the logic' of what I see as the most logically consistent interpretation. I see us as in a discussion and 'learning' not 'adversarial' forum.

It's also clear from the second part of your post that you haven't assimilated or retained the fundamental points in my paper, which considers the inertial frame of each electron the approaching waves meet, i.e. it's 'first encounter' with ANY and all matter. You blandly state; "this does not change the frequency" but offer no evidence, logic or explanation, which means it can be no more than a belief. Please read through the essay again now carefully, and you should then fully comprehend my reply to that part of your post (very shortly).

I should say by the way that your stated position is not a shock to me, it is the assumed position which I am pointing out has kept mankind in the dark for so many decades. All you have to do is some 'science', which is to 'suck it and see'. The results ability to finally explain all observation without paradox is as strong evidentially as the logic of the mechanism. If you wish to disagree then please find fault with either of those more critical aspects rather than use prior assumptions, which I point out are poorly evidenced.

That is after all the whole aim of this competition! Yes?

Peter

Eckard

Close your eyes, spin round 3 times then approach afresh. I hope you'll by now have re-read what I wrote and better understood it. If the detector

1. Is not made of matter. (i.e. does not exist), or

2. Misses the incoming photons/waves (they carry on by).

Then you would be correct. Relative frequency would be caused just by motion. However. He cannot detect the photons in either of those cases.

The ACTUAL situation is that the photons hit (or are propagated when the waves hit) and are absorbed by the very first surface free fine structure electrons of the detector. NOTHING can be detected unless this happens. You personally may best understand this zone as Maxwell's TZ. The moment these particles start re-emitting at c, the wavelength has changed because the particles are moving (in the detector frame).

You suggest it's the retina cells that work out the frequency. Certainly they may do so if they're given their own calculators, but even then they are way behind the implementation of delta lambda. The frequency changes THE MOMENT the wavelength changes, which is why they do so inversely, and the MOMENT they are absorbed and re-emitted.

Now you may take your blindfold off and see what has REALLY been going on. It is not the simplistic metaphysical thing we have assumed, it is the real quantum mechanism of atomic scattering, involving re-emission at c.

This real quantum mechanism naturally produces the same effects that SR was cobbled together to try to explain, (with all it's paradoxes and avoiding any link with quantum mechanisms).

There is ONE good reason NOT to believe the above, but only this one; The reason is that it is entirely new to us, unfamiliar, and contrary to what we have believed all our lives so is ingrained. We are religious creatures with brains still evolving, some more advanced than others, so most will not be able to assimilate such a change for that reason. I accept that, but of course unfortunately it doesn't relieve me of the task to explain, for those that can.

Entirely thankless task I'm afraid, but I seem lumbered.

Best wishes

Peter