• [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

        • [deleted]

        • Post #363

        Hi Peter,

        Congrats for being among the finalists. I didn't manage to invest much time in the reading of essays but I'm impressed by yours. Best wishes for a prize.

        Arjen

          Arjen,

          Thanks, damnit! with Juan's that's 2 high scores not added! But seriously, I value you view, thanks. I'm not concerned about prizes but to get across the kinetic concepts, which uncover what Sir Roger Penrose termed the 'Holy Grail of Physics'; Unification of Relativity with an underlying quantum mechanism. The model needs far better exposure and opportunity for explanation.

          It's implications were too wide to jam any more in the essay, already dense to the point of going nova with the components of the ontology and kinetically explaining them. I think I jammed in too much, but any less would have left gaping gaps in the logical construction.

          Did you also read my comments about quantum particles as part of 'fluid dynamic couplings' (used in auto gearboxes for torque conversion), implementing local c simply by re-emission at their own c. Is there any link with your work? It relates to surface plasmons (ion density fluctuations) and the shock dynamics of the link above (see also Rich Kingsley-Nixeys essay Fig 2.)

          Any views, input or thoughts you have are most welcome.

          Best wishes

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #365

          Peter Jackson,

          Does your theory predict the perhelion of Mercury?

          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

          10 days later

          doug, et al.

          Brill new agreement with predictions of my model from NASA/ESA Cluster data. I'll try to find some free access links to these recent papers (or just Google) but doi's, abstracts etc. here;

          Multipoint study of magnetosheath magnetic field fluctuations and their relation to the foreshock, J. Geophys. Res., 117, A04214, doi:10.1029/2011JA017240

          Narita, Y., Multi-spacecraft measurements, in Plasma turbulence in the Solar System, SpringerBriefs in Physics, 39-65, 2012 and Impacts on related subjects, 87-100, 2012.

          Servidio, S., F. Valentinio, F. Calfitano, P. Veltri, Local kinetic effects in two-dimensional plasma turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 045001, 2012

          Wang S., Zong Q.-G., Zhang H., Cases and statistical study on Hot Flow Anomalies with Cluster spacecraft data, Sci. China Tech. Sci., 2012, 55, 1402-1418, doi: 10.1007/s11431-012-4767-z

          Yuan, Z., Y. Xiong, Y. Pang, M. Zhou, X. Deng, J.-G. Trotignon, E. Lucek, and J. Wang (2012), Wave-particle interaction in a plasmaspheric plume observed by a Cluster satellite, J. Geophys. Res., 117, A03205, doi:10.1029/2011JA017152 also 117, A08324, doi:10.1029/2012JA017783.

          The implications of the verifications are fundamental. I've also just found one from last year reporting the findings of the significant ion population well beyond Earth's bow shock;

          André, M., Cully, C.M., Low-energy ions: A previously hidden solar system particle population, Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 39, No. 3, L03101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050242

          How did your venture into theoretical physics on 31st go? And have you assimilated the required 4 of the 8 concepts in the essay yet? The model is beyond 'proven true' for a Hawking 'model dependent theory', nice trick, but it seems it may also reach the higher falsification standard, a real treat!. Unless you've found where it went wrong, so I can get back to the golf!?

          Best wishes

          Peter

          Tom,

          1st order results are useful, but I'm suggesting that to really understand nature we need to understand the underlying quantum mechanism, which may only be apparent at 3rd order ('bottom up' logic).

          Let's consider your proposition more closely. We make 'all round' emitters for em signals, but even then they are different photons, intervening conditions differ, and certainly distance and flight times differ. Light is far more varied. Of 80,000 in a stadium no two will have precisely the same view of the tackle so receive identical photons, and even then their lenses differ. Trivial in itself I agree, but no less true. And I'm saying I've found that thinking in that very new way (like Earth orbiting the sun), can shed new light on a very important hidden aspect of nature.

          Firstly we realize there is NO observation until detection, which is ONLY possible by a process of interaction. The quantum 'measurement problem' then emerges. The measurer is part of the system measured. Unification is now just a Chinese puzzle I'm saying I've found the answer to, and will try to explain it;

          An 'inertial system' must have n particles involved or it does not exist. n particles makes a 'medium' (however tiny). EM waves interacting with the medium (any observer) do not then just have a frequency which varies subject to relative motion, on interaction they also instantaneously have a 'wavelength' LAMBDA, which is DELTA lambda wrt the approaching waves. This is a very new but completely logical viewpoint. All detectors have lenses or similar, which all then represent dielectric media, and which all have a state of motion (as well as a refractive index n.) so represents a discrete kinetic field. Let's postulate that all particles re-emit absorbed energy at c. (in Proper Time, so in the rest frame of the particle system).

          Now think hard about that, and consider that in all media c = f*lamba, = a constant, with f always the inverse of Lambda. Now I suggest the greatest realization since e= mc^2; This means c = f*lamba on approach becomes c' = f'*lambda' (plus a gamma factor) after transition.

          So CSL ('continuous spontaneous location' by each particle) derives CSL.

          Other hints are in the essay. I'm also about to post some links of some more cases of predictions verified, these on Earth's bow shock as a vector field of ions across two frames, similar to the fine structure of the surface of a detectors lens. Our ionosphere implements the ECI frame for local CSL.

          Can you see the importance of that unfamiliar way of thinking?; the SR postulates are derived direct from Raman scattering at c. That's the DFM.

          Peter

          (reposted here to avoid cluttering George's thread).

            Hi Peter,

            "Let's consider your proposition more closely. We make 'all round' emitters for em signals, but even then they are different photons, intervening conditions differ, and certainly distance and flight times differ. Light is far more varied. Of 80,000 in a stadium no two will have precisely the same view of the tackle so receive identical photons, and even then their lenses differ. Trivial in itself I agree, but no less true. And I'm saying I've found that thinking in that very new way (like Earth orbiting the sun), can shed new light on a very important hidden aspect of nature."

            I'm sticking by Einstein's definition of a "physically real" phenomena, which includes the caveat " ... having a physical effect ... but not itself affected by physical conditions."

            A relativistic model allows us to reconcile observer differences to a uniform spacetime -- and classical Newtonian optics explains by corrections in parallax, refraction or other effects of light behavior, differences in observer perceptions.

            The rest, I frankly don't understand. What I do understand, detailed above, argues for a unitary reality, i.e., objective physics independent of physical conditions.

            Tom

            • [deleted]

            • Post #369

            Peter Jackson,

            Does your theory support the actions taken during and the results achieved by the Pound-Rebka experiement? This is not a yes or no question. It is a question asking you to explain the reasons you give for or against the actions taken and for the results achieved? What is correct about it or what is incorrect about it?

            Other unanswered questions remain below in my messages to you.

            James

            James,

            Pound Rebka and e=mc^2 emerge logically, and clocks don't change at 1st order. Local time is the same in all frames, but mechanistic consequences of gas/medium density have similar effects on mechanisms as they do on 'dispersion' (i.e. index of refraction varies due to density, as we know, as well as harmonic resonance). This should all be fully intuitive.

            Pound-Rebka. First consider the speed of light at the surface of the Earth, using dense air, which is c/n at ~n=1.00033 (in the ECRF). Now consider the speed of light in the upper atmosphere, which is faster due to there being less particles to slow it down. In the lower ionosphere it's back to ~n=1. In this case there must be a 'grading' due to n subject to altitude, giving red shift on the way up and blue shift the other way, which Pound-Rebka nicely confirmed (if poorly interpreted by the overly myopic). I'm sure you can visualise the redshift effect; the higher 'photon' or wave peak goes faster first, so the spacing between them opens up. This fully predicts the Pound-Rebka result.

            (There is also a 3rd order effect to do with transitional birefringence between the rotating ECRF, non-rotating ECI and Barycentric frames, but it seems mankind is not quite ready to assimilate that one yet).

            E=MC^2. Is not replaced but a new insight seems to emerge. Envisage a particle as perhaps a tiny toroidal 'black hole' EM field (same morphology as Earth's magnetosphere). It has 3 axis, one each way around the body of the donut, plus the rotation of the donut ring itself, then plus a translational motion! This is a very powerful entity, with the 'spins' at max c. (You may imagine a donut on a plate as twin vortices, one up, one down). Or watch this brilliant video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VL0M0jmu7k

            The power is only in the energy of motion, so our understanding of 'mass' is improved, as any way round the equation should becomes intuitive, i.e. M = E/c^2.

            For more on clocks, precise measurement is important. Emitted signal durations do change due to acceleration, that's all, just like the redshift above. You may have read my article including exposing the dishonesty forced on Hafele & Keating for over enthusiastic propaganda purposes. If not here it is, with Hafele's honest words and results which brought the terrified 'though police' running to change them; http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers/1920871/SUBJUGATION_OF_SCEPTICISM_IN_SCIENCE

            That's long enough for now. I'll post again with the other answers. Sorry I'd missed these but they were buried in the middle of 370 odd.

            Do let me know of any doubts you have, the evidence is overwhelming but I need to get some idea 'why' most don't understand so I can learn how to explain it better.

            Many Thanks

            Peter