Pentcho

No. Wavelength is NOT invariant on transformation. Any 'text book' that suggests that is perpetuating current inadequacies. in fact they do not do so, but only refer to the RELATIVE speed, without properly recognising that they are doing so.

It is a 'shorthand simplification' which hides the mistake all sensible minds in physics are searching for.

L'=L is only 'obvious' to those who can't be bothered to think and analyse carefully enough. Which I agree is most at present.

I have clearly answered your question. You have not yet falsified my proposition. Quoting old theory in an attempt to disprove it's better replacement is invalid. This is what relativists do, so you should not resort to it.

Why do you not accept or try to falsify the clear logic?

I suggest only your beliefs in your old ingrained viewpoint stand in your way.

If you test the more complete model in application I promise you will find it impeccable.

Peter

    • [deleted]

    Peter,

    Yahoo did not find "kinetic transform problem".

    You wrote:

    "Maxwell's equations are, and have only ever been, only valid for each limited local space. They famously will not transform via the LT (a complex matter of 'partial time derivatives'). So the local spaces may then represent inertial frames. You should find plenty of references to this well known limitation which has never been resolved. If not I'll find some (or just see T E Phipps). All resolves with effectively an LT at the TZ."

    The space in which electromagnetic waves propagate according to Maxwell's equations is ubiquitous, i.e. it is the same in all vacuum that surrounds the earth and almost undisturbed in the air and in cosmic dust for many frequencies.

    With TZ you meant transition zone from near field to far field. This transition is not due to the refractory index of air but it depends on wavelength.

    I also guess you used LT not for Laplace transformation but for Lorentz transformation. The issue which has been convincingly addressed by Phipps should not be confused with your vague guesswork. Where wrote Phipps "local"?

    Eckard

    Eckard

    Predictions confirmed.

    The Integral/Ibis (X to Gamma) findings have confirmed the basis of predictions made regarding AGN's, quasar jets, blue shift and polarity etc. both in last years essay, referred in this years, (Inc. end notes) and particularly here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

    They are anyway of general interest. A short extract from todays ESA '1st decade' press release;

    "astronomers have detected polarised emission in three sources observed with INTEGRAL. The first detection of polarised gamma rays was achieved using data from the brightest source in the high-energy sky: the Crab Nebula, a supernova remnant consisting of a nebula with a pulsar at its core. The polarised component of the nebula's emission, revealed by INTEGRAL, appears to be aligned with the rotation axis of the pulsar, thus demonstrating that gamma rays are emitted in the vicinity of the central source - and possibly by the jets that stem from it."

    and perhaps more for Pentcho's interest;

    "Given the very large distance of the source, located almost 300 million light-years away from Earth, a team of astronomers has exploited these data to study how the light emitted by the source has propagated across the Universe before reaching us. In fact, if light rays with different polarisation states were to travel at slightly different velocities, as a result of the Lorentz invariance violation, this would leave a distinctive imprint on the data collected by INTEGRAL. Lorentz invariance violation is a symmetry breaking predicted in some of the theories that unify gravity and quantum physics. The study based on INTEGRAL data revealed no such effect: if such a symmetry violation is at play, it must occur at much higher energies than previously thought. The study also set a limit for the fundamental length scale of quantum gravity, which has to be smaller than 10^-48聽m."

    link; ESA INTEGRAL Oct 2012.

    Peter

    Eckard

    Maxwell's equations are not invariant under 1st order transformations. This means their domain is limited to a single (thus 'local') frame. In practice you'll find this domain equivalent to the near field, (or relevant to the 'near field' term) which, if you recall, you were kind enough to remind me of.

    I agree TZ position is lambda dependent. So is very small for light but large for radio waves. I thought I'd posted this extract from my new joint paper with JSM before;

    "Six different radio engineers familiar with antenna science, when asked for the equation for the TZ position, might all feel they know the precise answer. Yet each of their answers could be different. For wavelength L answers may range from L/2pi to 5L/2pi or 50D to 2/L to 2D^2/L where D is the radius of the transmitter (dish, or antenna length). For visible light this (Fraunhofer) transition distance from the surface of a small mass at rest is ~1 micron

    • [deleted]

    "a single (thus 'local') frame" ???

    • [deleted]

    Any discussion between sane people, no matter how heated, is based on elementary truths which are obvious and acceptable to both parties. That the motion of the observer cannot alter the wavelength is one of those truths, Peter.

    "vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

    Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."

    Pentcho Valev

    • [deleted]

    Congratulations Peter.

    Few theoretical physicists get the satisfaction of having made correct predictions confirmed by experiment, especially predictions that standard theory does not make.

    I think you should take full credit for your ideas. Could you quote the specific predictions from your vixra paper referenced above, explain how they match the new data, and how standard theory is not up to the job? This will help non-experts such as myself better understand and appreciate your work

      • [deleted]

      Pentcho,

      I see you quite right. However, when Peter wrote "Wavelength is NOT invariant on transformation" he did not mean the actual wavelength but a transformed wavelength without specifying which transformation he referred to.

      When Fred Dobbs, solicited an example, he gave Peter a last chance. Maybe, we are both wrong about Peter's idea?

      Eckard

      Pentcho

      I agree, moving observers only change the wavelengths they interact with, they do not affect that in the surrounding frame.

      What needs to be done, which is the new part, is to actually apply the finding, which you agreed, that there are two separate states; One before detection, one after. You use the common current assumption it is the one 'before' interaction that matters, I'm suggesting it is the one 'after'. My logic is this;

      A detector is a collection of massive particles. If there are no massive particles there is no detector, so can be no detection. We need to think carefully about that first axiom and accept it, or please suggest another logic if you disagree.

      If the detector is moving towards the source, then in the time t between wave peaks A and B reaching the detector, the detector will have moved, therefore the spatial point of interaction is different. This is simple kinetics OK?

      Then the time between wave 'peaks' in the surrounding medium interacting with a stationary point in that medium is different to the time t' experienced by the detecting particles. Still all OK?

      So (assuming index n is the same for simplicity) the distance between the peaks in the detector medium is shorter than the distance in the surrounding medium. OK? That distance is wavelength, lambda. Implicit at that same instant the frequency has changed inversely to lambda. As we know it does in all cases where we are measuring media to media Doppler shifts, including those due to delta n.

      So, using relative v and the only 'observable' f in the two media, the detection can tell us TWO things subject to assumptions about the other two values; propagation speed and lambda. It can tell us both the original 'relative' speed, and the new propagation speed, or if we assume a speed it can tell us both the original and new lambda.

      Remember, if there is no new medium then there is no detection.

      One other entirely different case is there to confuse the innocent. Turn the lens perpendicular to the light. Light passing by is not observable. But something CAN be. If there are gas particles which the light charges on its way past, and the light is quantized, then the particles will 'flash' on and off. The observer can then calculate a speed. Now think carefully. This will be a REAL speed if he is at rest in the surrounding medium, but only and 'apparent' or relative speed if he is in motion.

      The massive (pun!) mistake science has been making is confusing that 'apparent' speed with 'real' propagation speed (the light from the 'flashes' actually interacting with the lens is always only doing c).

      I agree this seems very difficult to comprehend at first. Once thought through it is entirely self apparent, but there is then the matter (pun2!) of the deeply ingrained assumptions (equivalent to 1,000yrs of flat earth) to overcome. That seems perhaps the far bigger problem.

      Do you agree?

      Peter

      Eckard

      Could you clarify something for me. Pentcho says delta L is not important so real detected speed is c+v. I show how I derive real speed c, and c+v as only apparent.

      Yet you claim I have suggested 'real' c+v, and say you agree with Pentcho. I find that quite confusing.

      I understand your confusion over transformation which is my fault. I use the normal convention of LT for the Lorentz transformation, or otherwise specify 'first order' or GT for Galilean transformation. In the above kinetics we only really need the GT but (at first order) it applies to both! The resolution of the LT hyperbola emerges, as briefly discussed in my essay, but is only an unnecessary distraction to this major first 'leap' of understanding of applied dynamic logic.

      (As Phipps points out, Maxwells equations can't currently even negotiate the GT let alone the LT. This delta lambda releases it to do at least the GT, as my equations).

      Do please consider and clarify the first point for me.

      Thanks

      Peter

      Pentcho

      Two clocks are at rest, spatial distance between them L. If they remain in the rest frame we find speed c.

      Now let's disect and fully define your scenario, and look at both possible cases.

      1. REAL If the whole 'inertial system' K' (clocks and space between them) moves. Then we must put 'markers' in the old frame K where the clocks were. The pulse interacts with the first, but in the time it takes to reach the second, the second has moved. That is the delta L in the new frame.

      2. APPARENT If only the clocks move, both through the background, then each clock is it's own local frame K'. The light between the clocks is then propagating in K, not the new inertial system you specified K', so any speed between them is only 'apparent' and will be calculated at c plus v.

      I'll endure house arrest, but can't recant truth! We go round the sun, and light changes speed on interactions.

      Peter

      Echard

      I agree "a single (thus 'local') frame" does need more explanation. I'm now so familiar with the new simple logic I forget how relatively confusing the previous understanding was.

      Perhaps a simple interpretation of Tejunders 'continuous spontaneous localization' will help. That is confusingly 'CSL', so I'll use 'instantaneous', for 'CIL'.

      Envisage a space, say a 10 metre cube, with say five 0.5 metre 'particles' in it, all made up of gluons, protons, electron shells etc. and all moving with respect to (wrt) each other. We'll slow down some light waves passing through the space, to a constant 5kph wrt the cube, which we'll call 'c', so we can see what's going on.

      As a part of each plane wavefront interacts with each particle the speed of propagation is instantly changed, or 'localised', to c', which is c wrt the particle NOT the cube. Most of the wave carries on at c, and another 0.5m bit may interact with a different particle, and then be localised to c", which is yet another c, wrt THAT particle. After a very short delay (PMD) each particle re-emits the charge (wave) at c wrt itself, that is; c' or c". So each of those speeds is different when viewed from the cube (background) frame, but is always c from the frame of each particle. That is 'local c' in the 'local frame' of each particle.

      Now if all the particles are at rest wrt the cube, but the PMD delay gives refractive index n = in excess of 1, then all the re-emissions will have the same speed and axis c'. The process is equivalent to 'extinction' of the old wavefront and speed c. The effect of two axis during extinction is a form of birefringence, precisely as first found by Raman Chandraseckara pre his 1930 Nobel. (He also confirmed the new emission speed c' is wrt the particle not any bound electron orbital speed). In this case the word 'local' then refers to the cube, which may of course be in motion wrt it's own background.

      Maxwell's 'domains' are only valid for each of those local frames. As soon as a 'transformation' (LT or GT) between frame is required they are invalid.

      The big difference here is that we can now assign a frame' the mutually exclusive 'space' envisioned conceptually by Einstein (1952) to finally complete his quest for a 'Local Reality' derived from a quantum mechanism. That mechanism is simply Raman scattering, co-incidentally found the year of his Leiden speech 1921.

      Does that help clarify the meaning assigned to 'local frame? The word 'single' may be almost irrelevant, but importantly reminds us that there are others, indeed "infinitely many spaces in motion relatively"; (AE 1952)

      Peter

      Fred

      Thanks. Most astronomical findings are unfortunately rather different to other experimentation, and interpretations also vary. I'd like to have predicted a precise 35.8344 'smarties' against the current 34.5 and IBIS constrained it to a range 35.75-35.9 but that's very rare. It's more about consistency of interpretations. It's easy to stick new patches on patches on patches every time the old theory breaks down. In my model none of the new findings need patches as they all fit perfectly into the ontological construction. Much is also now evidenced elsewhere. A quick 'Integral' list;

      1. Re-ionized (plasma) quasar jets from toroidal (SMBH) AGN's, giving the Electron /Positron 'annihilation' emissions 'in warm gas'; "This suggests that they have travelled across the interstellar medium from the much hotter sites of their production. Their origin, however, still remains unclear."

      2. Short wavelengths (hard X-rays and soft Gamma rays) due to detected jet ejection towards Integral, giving blue shifts up to gamma, but also red shift of receding jets. Common occurrence predicted; over 700 now found by Integral, many found as already known from longer wavelengths (and as 'radio lobes').

      3. Pulsars predicted as passing 'flashes' from helical (due to precession) 'ranging' jets. Consistent with findings (see my Fig 1 Centaurus A).; "baffling type of HMXB discovered...supergiant fast X-ray transients (SFXTs)." and "The origin of the outbursts in SFXTs is still debated, but is possibly linked to the accretion process that powers these X-ray binaries." Actually fully consistent with galactic disc accretion to AGN and jet emissions as paper describes. Non supernova GRB's are also consistent with this model, but currently characterised; "These bursts are tell-tale signals from the most powerful explosions in the cosmos; some of them are believed to be linked to supernova explosions and others to the merging of two neutron stars."

      But now also; "Over 250 of the extragalactic point sources detected with INTEGRAL have been identified as active galactic nuclei (AGN). These are galaxies hosting a central, supermassive black hole that is actively accreting matter; the accretion process causes AGN to radiate profusely across the electromagnetic spectrum." Precisely as the 'discrete field model' (DFM) predicted.

      4. The models basis of atomic scattering to the lower wavelengths (higher frequencies) from AGN's is confirmed, but gives a more consistent interpretation than; "The hard X-ray energy band is particularly important for the study of AGN since the emission at these energies is dominated by non-thermal emission mechanisms. An example is the Compton scattering of lower-energy, soft X-ray photons, which are released by the accretion disc that feeds the supermassive black hole and later bounce off electrons in the surrounding plasma, gaining energy in the process. Emission from AGN in the soft gamma-ray band is also crucial to study the powerful jets of relativistic particles that stem from the vicinity of the supermassive black hole."

      5. Similarly fully consistent; "By comparing the CXB (X-Ray CMB) to the stacked emission of a sample of nearby AGN as detected by INTEGRAL, a team of astronomers has demonstrated that the CXB consists of the cumulative X-ray radiation emitted by all unresolved active galaxies."

      6. I also discuss re-polarisation of the recycled accreted material from the 2nd Intro paragraph, including Chirality, (handedness), and it's cause. I also characterised the Crab nebula core as a smaller scale version of an AGN, fully in line with the Crab nebula findings; "The polarised component of the nebula's emission, revealed by INTEGRAL, appears to be aligned with the rotation axis of the pulsar, thus demonstrating that gamma rays are emitted in the vicinity of the central source - and possibly by the jets that stem from it." also other sources are confirmed as similarly polarised, (from the quasar emission process). The finding of no polarisation delta across f also 'defied current thinking'.

      7. Propagation of all frequencies equally at c constraining Lorentz violation is predicted and confirmed. The model suggests a quantized gravity basis of the free electron oscillation wavelength. The maximum length scale is found consistent by Integral at below 10^-48m. Interpretations such as that of accretion between binary stars are suggested as arising from poor understanding, but that proof is yet to emerge.

      These are 'layman' characterisations as requested. Many are noted with others (from Ibex, Sauron, Cluster etc.) in a further paper. You'll note the Corda/Schild essay now also has many consistencies. The paper is twice rejected so far as the ontology is rather inconsistent with current theory. Well that I can't deny.

      I you know any more courageous editors do let me know. One joint paper with just hints of one aspect has got through and is out soon, so may be a start.

      Best wishes (do let me know if you understood the above or found it nonsense). Thanks

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      Peter Jackson,

      Have you derived e=mc^2 or a replacement for it in your theory?

      Some older questions remain:

      If a macroscopic mechanical spring operated mantel clock is moving close to and horizontally to the surface of the Earth at a constant velocity, will it physically undergo length contraction and/or time dilation. Will its time keeping function slow? Will the clock keep slower time than an identical clock sitting stationary on the surface of the Earth. Will its size or shape change compared to an identical stationary clock sitting on the surface of the Earth?

      If a macroscopic mechanical spring operated mantel clock is moved from a stable high position above the Earth, stationary with respect to a point of the surface of the Earth, to a stable position on the Earth, will it have changed size or shape and/or rate of its time keeping function due to General Relativity type effects? Will it physically undergo length contraction and/or time dilation?

      I am not asking about effects due to acceleration. There is no acceleration of either clock with respect to the Earth. There is no velocity for the stationary clock. There is constant velocity for the clock moving parallel to the Earth. I am not asking about photons or doppler effects. I am not asking what the clocks look like from different perspectives. I am asking what happens to the clocks themselves with regard to relativity type effects? Please disregard any atmospheric resistance. The moon could be substituted for the Earth.

      James

      Dear Peter Jackson,

      Asymmetric quantum foam of space-time with quantum fluctuations in proper time is causal for charge asymmetry and hierarchy problem, in that proper time emerges with the dynamics of point like particle in curved space-time by moving clock that implies quantum vacuua of void in particularity.

      In Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, the tetrahedral-branes in holarchy is in analogy with quantum foam, in that time emerges with eigen-rotations of strings, formational as tetrahedral-branes. Eigen-rotational periods are in reference with reference time series in holarchy, in that moving clock at the peripheral end of eigen-rotational string-segment defines cyclic time. Though tetrahedral-branes also void, the cyclic time obviates gravitational collapse of eigen-rotational string-segments and thus the universe is eternal with no beginning of dimensionality from nothingness.

      With best wishes

      Jayakar

      Jayakar

      I recall reading your essay, and like your post I recognised almost all the words, but could glean no meaning from the way they were arranged. I did try to unravel them in my mind and found the odd phrase I could agree with, but still couldn't find any coherent reality. You'd need to start from the beginning, step by step, or give an axiomatic basis.

      I didn't comment on your blog as I could find nothing intelligent to say about your essay, and don't just discuss mine on others blogs. It seems we may arrive at the similar fundamental conclusion of a matter recycling model, though I only refer to that in my end notes this year. However, I can't yet see at all how you arrive at a similar conclusion.

      If you do read other essays I'd be happy to discuss how my model does so via it's underlying mechanistic basis. Perhaps any commonality may then be exposed.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      A simple request.

      My theory in some great part is based upon matter becoming spatial as it moves.

      The simple balloon experiment. [cold balloon placed into a heated room expands] is part of my rationale.

      To my knowledge, current theory (possibly going back to Maxwell) suggests the reason is that the particles move faster and with that additional momentum (p = mv)the particles hit the walls of the balloon with sufficient force such that the walls expand.

      The math may get complex, but I see that the molecules must lose some force by hitting into one another before they hit the walls. Very few will avoid collision loses and hit the wall with sufficient force to move the wall.

      The molecules have little mass so the "m" in "mv" taken into context with collision losses of the "v", = I just don't see that there is sufficient force to move the walls.

      Can this be proven by math?

      Secondly, as I mentioned before, we started with say "X" amount of space. We end up after heated with say "3X" amount of space. Do we not have additional space? Is this even arguable?

      Then, my question is where did the additional space come from? I am not questioning he gas laws, only the mechanism by which they work.

      How does current theory explain this?

      The space is internal and is a closed system. We cannot say that it expanded into its surrounding space and took the space from its external environmment using the rationale of what I believe to be current thought. [ I will explain the real reason later]. the space does not leach through the balloons walls.

      CIG offers an explanation.

      But, is current theory is even possible? In otherwords, use # molecules, force, collisions, velocity, etc, and see if there is enough force to move the walls of a thick flexible plastic latex walled balloon wall. I don't think there is which would suggest that another position must be offered (maybe CIG).

      If it is possibe, can someone explain with rationale how we get 3X of Space when we start with X amount???

      Even if there is enough force to move the walls, I need this answered.

      This is a sticking point for me. The answer will help me and others, to assess my theory.

      Either something is wrong with my rational thinking or current view is wrong.

      Regarding "We cannot say that it expanded into its surrounding space and took the space from its external environmment" , this is only partly true. While the space did not leach into the sealed balloon, the equivalent amount of energy in the external environment did, and the amount of newly created space internal to the balloon was exactly equivalent to the lost heat of the external envirnment. The quantification works.

      This is my euivalency (quantification) as modified by rate (i.e. the quantification is I believe at light speed and the molecules are moving less than light speed)

      0.02762u = 25.7MeV= 14,952,942.08 pm cubed of space

      (Mass) = (Energy) = (Space)

      Also, I would like a quantification equation using this conversion at speeds less than light speed.

      This would be like the Lorentz transformation equation stuff using the above modied for speeds less than "c".

      You will be furthering physics and reality.

      Step by Step, inch by inch we will get there:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yJBhzMWJCc

      THX

      doug

      reply can be sent to lippfamily@earthlink.net

        Doug,

        My previous 100% agreement with almost all of the theoretical basis of some relevant sections of the kinetic aspects your theory, still stands. I have however so far been a little disappointed not to have received the toffee apple.

        If you'd like to read my ontology and can understand and assimilate the logic of any 3 of the 8 wrong assumptions identified, taking you to stage 1, you will be offered three balloons and a free imaginary roller coaster ride, which will continue infinitely until you call 'ARETTE'.

        I believe you'll then find the consistency of that with reflection from moving mirrors, and with the surface magneto optic Kerr effect (SMOKE) when integrated with your CIG, to give the CIG-ARETTE effect. I look forward to your achieving that (you may ask as many questions as you wish). I hope to see you at the draw for the chance at stage 2. (If you get 4 of 8 first time round you go straight though).

        Best of luck

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        Hi Peter,

        Can I let go of one balloon and watch it until it gets smaller and smaller until it nearly disappears into the big blue yonder. Then, when it is finally completely out of sight, can we decide whether it still exists? If we do not hear it pop, has the tree fallen?

        It's nearly Haloween, and bobbing for tofee apples could get a bit sticky. I'm going to be a physicist this year....

        I will try to understand every word. I want to go straight through.

        THX for the reply - you're the best.

        tweety tweat

        doug

        • [deleted]

        Peter,

        Peter,

        Great article! We're not in Kansas anymore!

        I'm going to keep re-reading it until I understand all of it. Understand that I'll have to stop from time to time to look up the words / concepts on WIKI.

        THX

        doug