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

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

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

    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

    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

      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

      Tom,

      "I frankly don't understand." The model agrees a 'unitary reality', but simply also recognises that if the camera has a red filter, or is in motion, we have to subtract those effects to find what it is. Therefore 'observed' realities are only 'apparent' as they may differ. I can't believe you don't agree with that because it is the 'reconcile'you refer to.

      The only question that remains then is the underlying mechanism beneath the classical and mathematical theories which we use for reconciliation. That mechanism IS long outstanding, and I have found a very simple one which renders 'SR' compatible with 'QM', or rather 'unites quantum and classical physics'.

      It is simply Raman atomic scattering, by the particles of local 'inertial systems' at c in the system frame. Relative 'approach' speed may be whatever we wish (resolving any issue with two masses approaching, both at 0.6c) but the instant any interaction takes place the speed is modulated to local c wrt that system. This gives an effect identical the 'Local Reality' Einstein spent his later years searching for.

      You've found nothing wrong with the simple math, and will not. All we have done is considered that a detector must be made of matter, and detection requires an interaction, which itself modulates speed to c (resolving the 'measurement problem' of QM). The modulation is gradual in a diffuse medium, giving a curved path (GRIN lenses and space time diffraction) and birefringence (as found by Raman). The basis law then is, the f and lambda ARE always reciprocal, so we can't consider delta f without considering delta lambda, which then always gives c (read c/n, but n is the red herring), because c=f*lambda is a constant.

      This does take some metal dexterity. 'understand' is maybe not precise. I'm sure you do 'comprehend' the relation, but what you will not be able to do is 'assimilate' it, or find a 'hook' for it to fit in your brain, because it is unfamiliar.

      This is where Orwell's 'crime stop' comes in, which is when belief systems overcome science. If the data doesn't fit anywhere with current beliefs and understanding our minds will reject it. We have to 'go back to school age' in our minds to learn and revise it afresh. Most of us aren't willing to try. I believe you're one of the few who can.

      You wouldn't be 'buying in' to anything, just 'giving it a trial' to see if it works. I'm saying you'll find it works perfectly and doesn't hurt a bit. Au contraire in fact. If you can find any falsification at all I'd be delighted, but I need to understand how to overcome the 'crimestop' effect in explaining it in less than 200 years (thus my reference to the Copernican 'revolution'). Your help is greatly appreciated.

      Thanks

      Peter

        Peter Jackson,

        Working backward one at a time:

        Pound-Rebka concerns an effect that does not involve atmosphere. Remove the atmosphere: Does your theory predict the results of Pound-Rebka? Also, there was compensating action taken during the experiment: Does your theory explain the reason for and the success of that compensating action? The theory of relativity accurately predicted the results. Have you achieved the numerical predictions for Pound-Rebka experiments either on the Earth or on the Moon?

        "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."

        James,

        The DFM doesn't 'replace' SR or GR but identifies an underlying mechanism which derives them from the quanta. You ask; "Does your theory predict the results of Pound-Rebka?" Yes is the simple answer.

        But you didn't want simple, and I was guilty of over simplification. But first It's important to remember it wasn't the 'effect' that "didn't involve atmosphere", only the theory. It also then doesn't 'need' atmosphere.

        We need to start with a recipe. Take one solar systems worth of matter, liquidise it (re-ionize the matter in any good AGN) and spread it liberally in a large space (there are many photo's of those done earlier e.g. see my essay).

        Now we postulate that say 3bn^5 tons of matter has the same mass and gravitational potential as any other 3bn^5 tons of matter, whether crushed together into balls or spread out in the same space as ions. (This basis work very well in astrophysics, CDM modelling etc.) The same for a lens. We can focus 1kg of matter into a ball and see the past distorted, or dissipate the same matter into a larger space and find the same effect.

        Space is full of ions, (see my post yesterday) and even as 'perfect' a vacuum as we can get on Earth has over 100 'particles'/cm3 and rather more free electrons and protons. Ergo there is no such thing as the theoretical 'perfect vacuum' (as my essay). H He and O ions etc. occur at very high densities around Earth and the sun (~10^14.cm^-3) It is the natural state of the 'quantum vacuum', and they provide the underlying quantum mechanism for curved space-time via Raman scattering; absorption and re-emission of em fluctuations. (Look up Interstellar Faraday Rotation, which is the accompanying polarity effect).The density, thus diffractive effects is, as we well know, greater nearer greater bodies on mass (reducing to a few/cm^-3 in deep space).

        Now you have the basic fabric of space time, all the effects naturally emerge. The Perihelion of Mercury is precisely as GR predicts, because the space time curvature effect really exists, and greater the nearer to the sun. Even if Pound & Rebka had tried the experiment in a 'good' vacuum (and without the mylar bag of gas) they'd have found the same. You'll note the 'vibrating speaker' proved nothing abut the theoretical basis assumed of 'offsetting SR against GR', only set some quantitative parameters, so that 'may have been true', but equally may not. The DFM is consistent with that interpretation, and indeed identifies a number of other 2nd and 3rd order effects. The NASA/USNO guru on atmospheric effects is A.T. Young, whose findings are fully consistent with the DFM, even though he hasn't yet solved the aberration discrepancy problem theoretically, which the DFM has (see the essay).

        Young, A.T., Understanding astronomical refraction. NASA Observatory 126,82-115(2006)

        Young, A.T., Sunset science. IV. Low-altitude refraction Astron.J. 127, 3622-3637(2004)

        http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2006Obs...126...82Y&db_key=AST&page_ind=1&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&typ

        I hope that all helps explain. Quantitatively the effects are of the right order, but as I could pick any particular density/potential at any point (because we don't have the detailed data) 'proving' anything conclusive by maths is impossible.

        Peter

        James,

        Did you like the cool smoke ring energy video? Tokamaks are the same thing (nuclear fusion research).

        I've just checked your questions and the only one I can see not fully explained is the mantle clocks. No, they don't change. Consider why; I'm at rest in space with one clock. A planet comes past on it's orbital path and only just misses us. An identical clock on it's surface passes by. Which one is 'moving'?

        The DFM agrees with SR; All inertial frames are equivalent.

        But now gravity; If the clock is a rigid body it will not contract (but as nothing is perfectly rigid at 3rd order it may!). If it's one of those fancy new jello and gas clocks, then it will contract (when at rest nearer Earth). Take it back up to the space station airlock, and it will expand! But, just like a gas being heated, it's just the density, or space between the particles that changes (Classical mechanics). In the quantum interpretation of SR (and GR, and QM, as there's no distinction once unified) length contraction and dilation only occur on frame transformation, which we call 'acceleration'.

        About 3/5ths of the fancy 'frills' of all three theories are removed to unite both with QM. The biggest change is allowing Einstein his 'preferred' background frame back to give Local Reality, but with an 's' to make; 'frames'. He would have been very pleased.

        You're not giving much away. To make this worth the time I need feedback to help my presentational strategy. Your views are therefore of value, right or wrong.

        Thanks

        Peter

        Hi Peter,

        "It is simply Raman atomic scattering, by the particles of local 'inertial systems' at c in the system frame. Relative 'approach' speed may be whatever we wish (resolving any issue with two masses approaching, both at 0.6c) but the instant any interaction takes place the speed is modulated to local c wrt that system. This gives an effect identical the 'Local Reality' Einstein spent his later years searching for."

        What Einstein means by, "All physics is local," is that no communication (regardless of the form of interaction, gravitational, electromagnetic, whatever) between bodies happens faster than light can travel in a vacuum. That's an absolute limit -- meaning that any interaction below that threshold obeys Galilean relativity. The Galilean limit of slow speeds and short distances obeys Newtonian mechanics whether one speaks of gravity, optics, electromagnetism ... In your case of masses uniformly traveling at 0.6c, the relativity high speed causes a contraction of the mass according to an observer at rest relative to the object (at about .86c an object is contracted to about 1/2, so you can that it is contracted by only a very small amount at 0.6c) -- an equivalent way of saying it, is that the fast moving particle lives longer before decay, relative to the observer at rest. With that preamble, what are you saying, exactly?

        Are you saying that when two masses each traveling at a uniform speed of 0.6c collide, that the particles which scatter from the collision will not be measured at a combined velocity of 1.2c, but at 1.0c or less? Yes, we know that. Moreover, though, you seem to be saying that it is the detector itself which is responsible for the measured velocity.

        If that's what you're saying, how can we falsify it, so that we are sure we aren't introducing new physics?

        In fact, we know that highly energetic cosmic ray particles (muons) live longer before decay than expected, were they not energetic. How can that long life be accounted for as an observer effect, i.e., be caused by the detector? -- IOW, at point A, a particle at speed x is observed to be contracted (or longer lived) than a particle of the same mass at speed y -- because at point B, the particle traveling at speed y decays, while the particle at speed x decays at B'.

        It's clear to me that this effect is not caused by the detector, because the detector is at rest relative to both particles.

        Tom

        Tom

        What is "at rest relative to the object??" and if the observer is in the same frame (state of motion) why do not all objects we're 'at rest with' contract?!

        I agree with your characterisation of AE's view and all your preamble up to that point, when you found you needed a background rest frame.

        What if the 2nd rocket doing 0.6c did not exist? Without a background frame the 1st rocket is at rest in an inertial frame equivalent to the nearby planet! Yes.?

        What I am showing is that such local background frames are indeed logically allowable without breaching the SR postulates, i.e. CSL. Yes, it is unfamiliar, therefore will appear to be new physics. it really isn't it's just better, and more consistent, understanding of old nature.

        If a detector is not there at all, there can be no detection agreed? Put one there, and lambda changes the instant f does. Yes? Does no c = d/t?

        The plasmasphere and atmosphere themselves interact so are 'detectors' which modulate c to the local frame of the inertial system of the planet. The more energy a particle has the longer it takes to be absorbed. All matter represents a medium, thus an inertial system. Can you really falsify any of that?

        Peter

          " ...when you found you needed a background rest frame."

          I don't need a background rest frame. Relative rest means that if you and I, say, are both traveling uniformly beside each other at 60 kph, we are at rest relative to each other. If you accelerate to 70 kph, and my speed does not change, I am at rest relative to your accelerated frame.

          "If a detector is not there at all, there can be no detection agreed?"

          Sure, that falls into the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there ..." category, philosophically. However, there are never "no detector present" conditions in a universe containing more than one particle, however.

          "Put one there, and lambda changes the instant f does. Yes? Does no c = d/t?"

          No. The constant c is set to unity for nonrelativistic events. Sounds to me like you're trying to quantize the speed of light -- from the POV of the photon's constant state of motion, however, no time exists at all.

          Tom