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]

  • Post #348

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]

  • Post #351

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]

    • Post #353

    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]

    • Post #354

    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

      doug,

      It'd be a first! My money's on max 4. But it does depend on how thoroughly your brain cells have been pre-programmed with nonsense.

      I don't accept the concept that the balloon gets out of sight. It always stays in sight, but the limits of our capability to identify it from the clutter with the kit we've evolved are very low. My screen wallpaper is the Hubble extreme deep field image. It's 'in sight' each night, but I need the HST and my computer to discern it. The balloon in then always in sight.

      (Except when it hides behind something or I turn away). But when we ALL turn away there IS no balloon any more as we know it, just a few more waves waiting to be collapsed into a balloon by some lens and brain.

      Congratulations on deciding you're going to be a physicist. I'd have advised against it, but what do I know? Someone has to do it. (eventually). I just hope your brain doesn't get filled with all the wonderland mumbo jumbo, voodoo and technobabble that makes most fail (and beware of the Wiki witch!)

      No-one had told me Coney Island was once in Kansas. It explains a lot.

      Best of luck. Do report in.

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #356

      Hi Peter,

      No no no... Not an actual physicist.

      Only for Haloween.

      THX

      doug

      doug

      Sounds wise. As physics, like f and lambda is inverse (or something ...verse anyway) then it seems the only chance we get to escape the trickery and do it sensibly may be Haloween.

      Over to you then!

      Have you reached 4 yet? You are allowed to write them down and rehearse them.

      Peter

      Pentcho

      I gather the Wiki page on emission theory has been improved, but it seems all the examples only disprove it. Perhaps you may post some others there to give it balance? Please update me on your refutations of the proofs of the list there; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory#Refutations_of_emission_theory

      You may recall the DFM supports emission theory locally (within the near field as far as the TZ) though that may be as short as nanometre scale for small masses (localisation).

      Fresnel refraction becomes Fraunhofer beyond the TZ where Snell's Law is violated, because speed c is modulated to c' by re-emissions at the boundary.

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #359

      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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #360

      Thanks for the last message. Indeed I'm missing some of them. And I found yours on Spam.

      Anyways, I did took notes and asked some questions. Hope they are helpful.

      I'm glad you recognized the philosophical assumptions behind seemingly "scientific" statements, like those around "vacuum." The ideas behind much science go back to Aristotelian science's dictum Nature abhors a vacuum." As you made me realize, they keep "popping up," or not, every now and then.

      I wonder about one of your assumptions, falsifiability. What's your stake on Einstein's cosmological constant? From the little I know about the topic, it seems he plugged it in to avoid rejecting cherished assumptions about a static universe, then rejected it as a flaw, recognizing his "mistake." Supposedly some want it back. I believe in progress but not sure how to address this.

      Did Einstein want to incorporate QM, or explain it away? I thought it was the latter. But I should go check,.

      When you say "we forget reality," what do you mean? As in, reality is a sine qua non principle? or as in "we know" there's a reality out there? Is reality quantifiable, like Kant used to say, i.e more waves we can "add"?

      As you predicted I did resonate and enjoy your conclusion. I think Riemann would have done so too. His system indeed is dynamical. As i interpret some of his notes, his space-time seems to have consisted of a curved surface/volume in correlation with particle/point/prime density. And as for Charles' Mad Hatter, some claim he may found in "Riemanniana" a place analogous to Wonderland!

      Great essay, in all aspects: philosophical, scientifical and literary. Congratulations!

        Juan

        Very kind, thanks. There are more implications than first appear, resolving many anomalies throughout science.

        My take on the cosmological constant, expansion and redshift is that they seem to resolve as the resistance of dark matter and/or the dark energy field, plus a slowing expansion in the exact scaled up model of re-ionized quasar jet matter evolving into an open then closed spiral galaxy. The anistropic flow, 'axis of evil', helical CMBR asymmetry etc. all follow that pattern. Interesting web archived paper here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

        Einstein went back on it, then regretted doing so later, but it's meaning still seems poorly understood.

        On QM. He wanted to 'unify' classic and quantum physics, searching for the 'Local Reality' that Bohrs QM couldn't give. As it was he who invoked the 'light corpuscle' he was frustrated he couldn't find how the 'quanta' and it's mechanisms resulted in the classically observed effects on which he based SR and GR. If fact the answer was simple (though we're still too simple to see it). He 'threw out the baby with the bathwater' disassociating SR with ether. He only needed to throw out the 'absolute' part. The dark matter particles are NOT all in the same 'absolute' frame, and it is they which constantly localise c.

        I say "we forget reality" when we abstract to algebra and maths. Frequency is NOT a physical reality, thought it is the 'observable' it's only a time derivative. Wavelength is the real scalar, so it is distance that changes on 'transformation' of two 'peaks' into a moving medium over non zero time. So detection is a NEW Doppler shift case deriving a new wavelength Lambda, with frequency f as the inverse of lambda. As c = f*Lambda c is then co-variant in the new discrete field. The model (DFM) couldn't be much simpler!

        I'm no mathematician so have never fully understood Reimann's system. I agreed with Charles Dodgeson before I ever knew he was saying anything about maths. The Cartesian system can't model the effects of evolution of interaction due to motion, because motion is an invalid concept in geometry and so also 'vector space'. If you could apply Riemannian space to mathematically continuous spontaneous localisation (CSL) at all matter particles that would be brilliant. Is that possible?

        But the process is turbulent so maths has Navier-Stokes limits. The 'frame boundary' process of 'hydrodynamic coupling' within multi particle systems has just been confirmed as consistent with DFM dynamics but also turbulence and with Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities, by the latest Cluster Probe findings; http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=50977

        Did you also look at the 'shock' cross section in Rich Kingsley-Nixey's essay fig 2? It's a very important re-interpretation.

        Peter

        Fred,

        Two more predicted effects confirmed. Different sources but closely related. Surface electron scattering at photovoltaic cells as pair production /absorption and 'recombination', discussing 'surface plasmon' density oscillations, and admitting the near field effects are poorly understood.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/oct/03/new-theory-describes-ultrathin-solar-cells

        Then also, today, an esa release of the 4 probe 'Cluster' findings from earth's bow shock, confirming the 'relative motion/coupling' effects between the shock (Earth centred) frame and Barycentric (and solar wind) frames discussed above. http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=50977

        The answers are staring us in the face once we, (as Einstein said), know what to look for. Unfortunately it seems indoctrination by to much inconsistent theory means most don't know what to look for. Is there a solution?

        Peter