Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

Pter Jackson,

""I am asking only about the immediate local physical effects on the objects themselves." And I answered that; NONE! - because each one of them is equivalently 'at rest' when not accelerating. I'm not sure what more you want?"

I wanted direct answers to simple questions. Either yes or no. You say NONE and you are wrong. The examples I gave and the followup message that attempted even more strongly to get those straight answers:

"Dear Peter,

If a macroscopic mechanical spring operated mantle 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 mantle 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 photons or doppler effects. I am not asking about any effects due to accleration. 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. Please disregard any atmospheric resistance to the clock's motion. The moon could be substituted for the Earth.

James"

have nothing to do with acceleration. Any and all velocities involved are constants and relative.

I suspect you just didn't recognise the answer, because it does need a 'new way of thinking' (as Einstein predicted, and as Bragg). Perhaps approach it this way;

"Gravity aside there are only two fundamental states of motion of bodies; 'REST' and 'ACCELERATION'. You want to consider 'rest'. OK; There is no length contraction, no nothing! BUT; a non rigid body or system having accelerated FROM one inertial rest frame INTO another will NOT be in the same state as it was in the previous rest frame. Even a time signal will have compressed or dilated. And it then STAYS that way all the time it's at rest in it's frame of propagation."

There is no rest state. There is no evidence for a rest state. There is relative velocity and there is change of velocity.

"or the Compton effect there simply IS NO ENCOUNTER without an acceleration, so no calculation!"

Yes there is an encounter. And, that encounter can be modeled mathematically.

"Perhaps look at it this way; If the 'target' is in the same state of motion as the approaching particle, then the particle is NOT APPROACHING IT. So if you're not interested in acceleration, you're not interested in interactions involving different relative velocities, so there is no 'effect'."

There are background properties and relative velocities within them. Different velocities do give different observed and real results.

James Putnam

I my previous message the following comment should have been in quotes. It is Peter Jackson's comment:

"I suspect you just didn't recognise the answer, because it does need a 'new way of thinking' (as Einstein predicted, and as Bragg). Perhaps approach it this way;"

My own opinion about this kind of comment is that in both cases it is not a call to correctness. It is a call to feel obligated to agree with the author's viewpoint. Peter can speak to others for himself. Einstein is no longer with us, but, his call for a new way of thinking had to do with convincing others that he was correct. He was not correct. Relativity theory is clearly wrong. It is wrong because if rests upon unverifiable properties. Those properties are represented in spacetime. Neither space nor time are available for us to experiment upon. We cannot establish properties for either one. The theorists, including Einstein, attach their imaginative ideas to the equations of physics and do not sometimes wait for others to judge them for themselves. The calls for a 'new way of thinking' so long as that new way adheres to the theorists' view is best ignored.

James Putnam

Tom, Peter, and any interested readers,

Regarding my previous message: Spacetime is an unfalsifiable theoretical idea. This statement and some of my previous statements, like about cause or intelligence in discussions with Tom, might be more palitable if I make clear that all empirical evidence, in other words, everything upon which physics basis itself upon, consists of patterns in changes of velocity of matter. 'Matter' is a catch-all word for objects who's motion is observed. This very last sentence may be challenged by experts or very knowledgeable others such as Tom. If it is challengeable, I will appreciate a non-theoretically based challenge that clarifies 'matter'.

James Putnam

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the news. Actually, I never had a lot of confidence in the purported link between the standard model and supersymmetry, as suggested in a piece I wrote in 2008 , which also predicts the acceleration parameter you mention, at 0.86, due to a cosmic binding energy.

More will have to wait for later.

Tom

I always seem to forget something in the link

Sorry, Peter, I made the case for the acceleration parameter 0.86c more explicit in my essay on time (FQXi, "Time Counts"). Too many gaps for a prize, I think, and theorists rarely win them anyway. If one is willing to accept the hypothesis of a cosmic binding energy, however, the numbers do add up.

E^2 = mc^4 (pc)^2 is the unreduced version of E = mc^2. It implies, though, that a relativistic particle of positive energy and zero momentum possesses negative mass. (This is covered in my "time barrier" paper, 2.12 et seq.) Negative mass has to be physically real for my theory to work (another reason that makes a Nobel prize improbable.)

You have to give me time on responding to your original work. Many of the terms are unfamiliar to me.

Tom

Tom,

"Einstein's gravity research (like Newton's) always focused on what we could discern of nature's workings in situ, i.e., without imposing special conditions, without disturbing the system. The relativity results -- such as correctly predicting the precession of Mercury's orbit, and Einstein lensing -- assume the pristine laboratory of nature, not the controlled laboratory of a scientist."

The prediction of the precession of Mercur'ys orbit and Einstein lensing must be made based upon properties of objects. Space and time are not objects. They also are not part of physics equations including Einstein's. Their pretended identities are representative of other properties that do have to do with the properties of objects. The t is cyclic activity. The l or d is length. Both of these pertain to objects and the predictions of equation that use them also consist of effects that pertain to objects. The predictions of relativity theory must be and can be made using only properties of objects. At least then the physics equations will have some of the detrimental effects of theory removed. The ideas that time and space, as unique properties, play roles in physics equations is such theory. My position is that physics empirical evidence results only from patterns in canges of velocity. Neither space nor time have demonstrated changes of velocity or velocity or have appeared in any form in empirical evidence.

James

Hi Peter,

Your work covers so much territory that I'm going to have to break it down into manageable bites in order to reply. It was easier for me to understand and relate to this article I found by "DocJudith" (who is she?) so if you endorse the article, let me address first:

"It is predicted that the Fine-structure constant effectively increases with acceleration in this way to conserve input energy in accordance with the Law of Conservation of energy. The model proposes that 'c' is constant within these quantum clouds and considers the far reaching consequences."

In this at least, I am sure that we are talking about the same thing. You can find it discussed in much the same terms in both my "time barrier" and "time counts" papers linked earlier. The idea that the universe conserves energy by accelerating, I reduced to the statement: "Volume preserving is energy conserving." What I mean, is that the limit of universal acceleration (predicted numerically at 0.86c) requires the back-action of negative mass-energy to account for the equivalence of gravity and acceleration; this limit is the approximate speed at which a massive object is contracted by about 1/2 in the direction of travel, by the Lorentz formula and special relativity.

Consider that because bow shock in one direction is negative pressure in the opposing direction -- positive acceleration in the direction of the bow shock is negative acceleration in the other direction.

I've isolated three other statements from the article that apparently agree with my own conclusions. Let's see how this one does first.

Tom

"The prediction of the precession of Mercur'ys orbit and Einstein lensing must be made based upon properties of objects."

They are.

"Space and time are not objects."

What you're failing to understand, James, is that in Einstein's theory, space and time *independently* are not physically real. It is only spacetime that is physically real.

"They also are not part of physics equations including Einstein's."

A physical dog is not part of the linguistic description D-O-G, either. The description of the physical object is, however, unambiguous to one who speaks English.

Tom

Peter Jackson,

My remarks regarding no acceleration had to do with specific examples of constant relative velocities. Those velocities took place in background circumstances that have consequences upon the objects that have those velocities. The clock moving at a constant velocity horizontal near the surface of the Earth is speeding through a graviational field. This was not a question about special relativity.

"For the Compton effect there simply IS NO ENCOUNTER without an acceleration, so no calculation!"

Can you account for the Compton Effect or not? Take encounters very close and increasingly farther apart. Have you made a calculation of this effect based upon your DFM?

"It was explained to me very recently by a Fermilab physicist in these word;

"E = mc^2 is only correct for an object at rest (meaning in the center of momentum frame). A proton at rest counts, even though the constituents move. For a stationary proton, the center of momentum is unmoving.""

This is incorrect with regard to my question. I did not mark the m to indicate that it was rest mass only.

James Putnam

Tom,

""The prediction of the precession of Mercury's orbit and Einstein lensing must be made based upon properties of objects.""

"They are."

No. For one thing time is not an object.

""Space and time are not objects.""

"What you're failing to understand, James, is that in Einstein's theory, space and time *independently* are not physically real. It is only spacetime that is physically real."

Except that he was wrong. Time and space are independent. He can't theoretically unite that which he cannot provide empirical data on. He had and we have data on the motion of objects only. Neither space not time have ever been experimented upon. Einstein's equations need to be corrected. In general, their forms are all right and therefore have proven useful. However, they contain theoretical properties that need to be replaced with properties that pertain to objects. Spacetime is not real. Space and time are not unified. Einstein's predictions do not substantiate the theretical idea of spacetime. His predictions must be and can be made by equations that involve only properties of objects. In this case, the properties in the equations used are empirically verifiable. The benefit gained by removing the theory is that the equations that result are more useful than are his.

""They also are not part of physics equations including Einstein's.""

"A physical dog is not part of the linguistic description D-O-G, either. The description of the physical object is, however, unambiguous to one who speaks English."

Tom, I am not objecting to symbolism. I am objecting to symbolizing invented properties instead of symbolizing physical properties that are supported by empirical evidence. Those properties will pertain to objects.

James Putnam

James,

Time is not a physically real object. Spacetime is.

If you think Einstein was wrong, you have an immensely hard row to hoe, in face of the evidence.

Tom

Tom,

"Time is not a physically real object. Spacetime is.

If you think Einstein was wrong, you have an immensely hard row to hoe, in face of the evidence."

No I don't. I have already produced the replacement equations. E=mc^2 has been replaced. I presented this work in my Essay titled 'Our Analog Universe'. Spacetime is gone. Length contraction remains. Time dilation is gone. There is a universal fundamentally constant measure of time. It was presented in my first essay 'The Absoluteness of Time'. In it I also put forward many examples of correcting physics equations including Maxwell's. All of this and much more is available at my website. There is an essay on 'The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy' that shows many of the new results that are achieved by removing theory from the equations of physics. Clausius discovery is explained. It has never been explained before. Etc.

James Putnam

Tom and Peter,

Sorry, but my conversation with Tom should not be taking up space in Peter's forum. In going back and forth between forums, I didn't realize this as quickly as I should have. My work and this conversation has nothing to do with Peter's. I apologize for taking up his valuable space. I will respond elswhere.

James Putnam