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

James,

"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."

Then my answers have said all I can say, and will seem inconsistent with your own. In my universe there are not separate domains called 'SR', 'Gravity', QM etc, there is simply nature, little of which is understood by so called 'intelligent life'. Thie is the 'different' way of thinking I've suggested. A quanta or system (i.e. mechanical 'ticker') in inertial orbit around the earth, however close (so passing close and parallel to the surface) is at rest because its 'centre of momentum is unmoving' or 'unmoved'. Any such eccentricity is due to acceleration, from whatever cause. That fundamental view is simple and seems consistent. It may indeed have been "incorrect with regard to (your) question" but was correct in itself, and I'm not party to or probably 'in agreement with' the viewpoint underlying your question.

Length contraction of rigid bodies does not happen in the DFM any more than in experimental science, and contraction and dilation of non rigid bodies and sequence on acceleration are reduced to a simple description of temporal evolution of interaction that can be largely covered by Christian Doppler's findings.

Of Compton. The simple and rather meaningless answer is then No. To me the Compton effect is just one label for a poorly understood mechanism with many labels, and a more complete description comes via what is labelled Stokes/anti Stokes Raman scattering. I have found agreement that physics is indeed all about finding hidden likenesses and connections.

Your suggestion that 'encounters' are not physical, so may be 'further apart' than at a spatial interaction point, shows your very different way of considering absorption and scattering as a 'detection' process. I fear you are then a very long way from the viewpoint required for the DFM. No problem, we must each follow our own path and falsify our own models. If we all thought the same way then I suspect life wouldn't last 5 minutes!

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

I've moved your Nov16 post to here from the Oct5 string for ease, then reply;

"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 link was dead, but I think you're referring to a Wiki article by DocJudith who authored the David Whiffen article (ex UK NPA head and spectroscopy pioneer) whose work was fundamental in allowing development of the Discrete Field Model. I don't fully agree with all the characterisation, but I gather that's what happens to all theories once others get hold of them!

I see the links with your work, but not with the 0.86c and time (redshift z = 0.8) since deceleration became acceleration. However, I do agree acelleration 'in the other direction', and indeed identify a fully fledged physical (small scale) model of it in AGN (ion) jets. The 'balancing' jet may correlate with the other half of each re-ionized body having a predominance of anti matter.

Bit in fact I take a far more fundamental start point with no prior assumptions (i.e. of length contraction LC of rigid bodies). Let us go back and study how LC arose. It was ONLY ever required within SR to explain CSL for co-moving observers. It has not yet been found, and is at the root of the chasm with QM and most of the paradoxes. So if we can find ANOTHER way to explain CSL, more logically and compatible with the quanta, we may be able to remove all the paradoxes from Relativity.

This is exactly what the DFM offers. But a lot more fundamental assumptions must be dropped to make it understandable; Start from this; If there really is such a concept as 'Proper Time' (an emitted time period measured from the same state of motion as the emitter or propagating medium), then there must also be an 'improper time'. So what is it? Has it been defined? NO! But it should be, so try this;

It is time measured by an observer in any OTHER arbitrary state of motion. Using this time we then get APPARENT speed, which is different to PROPAGATION velocity. When actually ARRIVING AT a detector, the interaction itself modulates the speed to the local propagation speed c. That itself gives CSL FOR ALL OBSERVERS EVERYWHERE. i.e. the 'apparent speed' of an approaching rocket may be ANY speed subject to the speed of the observer, but it's real speed cannot be found without interaction, which changes the speed (to max c) which = CSL.

This provides exactly what Einstein was searching for, 'Local Reality' and Relativity derived from the quanta (atomic scattering), with no paradoxes. Ether as such is NOT required but space is NOT empty of quanta, just diffuse. So a local 3rd frame CAN and DOES always exist, but a LOCAL background, not the single absolute background AE had to ban.

I have a very long paper in draft identifying scores of other anomalies the model resolves. It's quite mundane and logical, but may be too 'different' for most minds to absorb or assimilate. The future of any race in the universe that can't absorb it may however be curtailed so a bit of effort could be rewarding.

It reveals itself bit by bit as past assumptions are removed, so first let me know if you can see the relative dynamics of the above. Do please at any point flag up all possible problems you think you may see.

Peter

Tom

And ref your 18.40 post. I agree a binding energy, and also what you may term a 'negative mass' but I see as simply the bottom half of a wave, where the apparent 0 is the meridian, but fluctuations are down as well as up, implying that 0 is not in fact 0 but just the 'ground state' or balanced energy condition. Perhaps negative mass is then analogous to the Dirac hole. However. I have no physical proposal and this is only a peripheral implication arising from the models ontology.

Do please ask about any terms unfamiliar to you. I'd like to pass you more explanatory links but don't wish to overwhelm you. One useful background paper may be the one accepted for the latest Hadronic Journal. (Issue No. 4. Vol. 35. Accepted Aug. 2012, not yet weblogged). But many other aspects are covered elsewhere. I'd value your view.

Peter

Peter,

Thank you. I think that I know enough of what I need to know about your model. I do not agree with it. You have finished very well in the last two contests. So you have fared very much better than I have. For the record, I do not recall suggesting that "...'encounters' are not physical. Specifically, the encounters observed in the Compton effect are physical. Thank you for your time.

James Putnam

Dear Peter,

Looking at your paper again, a couple of questions come to mind.

1. What do you think about the "123 orders of magnitude problem" involving the cosmological constant?

2. When you discuss the fact that only a small percentage of the known universe is conventionally thought to be ordinary matter, are you suggesting that dark energy can be explained in terms of already-known properties of the "medium?" if not, how does dark energy fit into your view?

3. What do you think about the Unruh effect and the implications for arbitrary boosts and absolute frames?

4. I am not sure where your viewpoint leaves the Poincare group. It's one thing to posit that "relativistic" observations can be explained by the local nature of observation, but that is not the only way in which the idea of the equal status of all frame of a certain type contributes... it also underlies the derivations in standard QFT, which work up to a high level of precision.

Take care,

Ben

    Tom,

    Exposed!! Anticipatory plagiarism of my model. In one of the most severe cases of the last 100 years I've found my ideas copied by lauded physicist Dr Bruce McLaren, who died in the 1st World War. He was aided and abetted by Sir Oliver Lodge, who it turn out was guilty himself of stealing a key proposition of my essay and model, that the Doppler effect for a moving detector/prism;

    "...depends REALLY on wavelength, but APPARENTLY on frequency, just as...with a grating."

    That is on the NEW wavelength, spontaneously localised by the particles at the detector interface. He also then confirmed if detector advanced "...at velocity v towards the waves... then the 'virtual' velocity of the light towards the prism is V v." Note 'virtual velocity', NOT propagation velocity. They are allowed to be different as the media (spacetime geometries) are co-moving.

    Lodge pointed out McLaren's Oct 1913 (Phil.Mag xxvi) paper in 1921 s6 vol.41 while AE was in Leyden, directly plagiarising my July 2012 FQXi essay well in advance by pointing out that IN A MOVING MEDIUM; "THE PATHS OF ENERGY ARE NOT NORMAL TO THE WAVEFRONT"!!

    also that this is consistent with the PoR, if "the idea of drift of wavefronts are foreign to that theory." (and explaining the "prism and water filled telescopes" results.)

    But the BIGGEST NEWS IS (Courtesy of Tom Miles) that Lodge also SPOTTED AND ADMITTED a problem due to that aberration angle error in his 1921 paper (Fig.13) But he did not track down the cause, identified in my 2010 GSc.Jnl paper; 'Lodges Error' confirmed by the Kinetic Reverse Refraction (KRR) identified in my essay, caused by his forgetting to get into the co-moving medium frame to measure the refracted angle in 1892.

    The aberration angle is indeed the KRR angle, proving conserved photons and umbrellas are NOT needed! and that the IAU may now soon be able to re-adopt the aberration constant on a sound theoretical basis.

    So a complete tangled mess is unravelled and all the bits fall into place. Does all that make sense? and is there time travel?, or is there really 'nothing new under the sun'!?

    Peter

    Ben,

    Q 1 & 2 have the same answer. Dark Energy would provide the 'cosmological constant' (CC), and redshift is not directly or mainly related to CC but to propagation loss. I identify a number of cases of two effects mistaken for one in the essay. This is probably another case, as the recession of emitters does of course also give redshift.

    For the complete picture it seems you'd need to do what you do at the cinema. Forget reality and 'strap yourself in' for the ride. The Universe did not have accelerated but decelerated expansion right from the start up to recent times. That much is accepted science (to z=0.8). The reverse of the curve is then an error due to inconsistency in applying the effects of the local WHIM and Halo matter - even in the same way as applied in emitter galaxies. The kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovitch effect proves this. This very day. The problem is that it's uncomfortable around current SR interpretation so remains ignored theoretically. Look at a quasar jet and it's evolution into an open spiral galaxy for a scale model of a universe. pictures here.

    Q3. I consider Unruh largely a misunderstanding, and really just a clarified photoionization effect. i.e. it is proportional to SPEED through the field not acceleration. Again consistency with SR made 'acceleration' more palatable, but now we know the vacuum is not a vacuum why keep pretending? In astronomy it's quite clear an asteroid is also a comet. The coma grows as a function of velocity and particle density, just like all bow shocks, and the plasma shock ahead of the space shuttle skin on re-entry, up to 'optical breakdown' density (~10^21/cm^-3) where (radio etc.) em waves won't propagate. The purpose of the dense ion 'surface fine structure'/shock is a fluid dynamic coupling. A linear version of the torque converter of an auto gearbox, where each ion re-emits at it's own (continuously spontaneously localised [CSL]) c. so CSL = CSL = the SR postulates direct from n QM's.

    Q 4. I had to go back past Descartes, even to Boscovitch to escape all Lorentz symmetries. Again, strap in; We have to leaver Poincare some way behind before we can turn round and get a full overview. The Laws say all frames are equivalent. People have assumed that does not mean just what it says. I assume it does, and it works better. i.e. It does NOT say that the 'proper time' between two events is invariant on TRANSFORM between frames. Only that once WITHIN a frame is is invariant. So see the formula I give. Nonsensical metaphysical 'time derivatives' do NOT transform, the wave function DOES transform because wavelength lambda (thus time between events) does NOT!!!

    Physics now becomes astonishingly simple; Consider an 'inertial system' of particles (all at rest/or travelling at the same speed). We will call it a 'bus', and it's state of motion a 'frame'. It's bounded by windows that let em waves in. It may be 'in' a dense (air) or diffuse (space) particle medium. The bus accelerates into a new frame towards a distant source. All waves approach at c wrt the LOCAL background medium. On interaction, lambda reduces, due to the TWO SEPARATE factors of bus v and glass n (=1.55) so of course frequency f (timed by the BUS DRIVER) decreases, because f*lambda = c is a constant. The pedestrian outside still finds the OLD f, both locally and 'apparently' for the photons he can track from the scattering from within the bus.

    His findings of apparent c and f IN the bus are irrelevant and all his mates running and driving past find different arbitrary f and speeds in the bus (but all find local c when light hits their own lenses!) The LT is a simple power curve, or hyperbola approaching 'optical breakdown' at c. (You'll find it as the inverse of the LHC fuel bill accelerating a bunch to c through the vacuum medium).

    Now QM works better too, as the 'measurement problem' has also disappeared! Yes, each lens ion DOES affect the result! CSL direct from Raman scattering.

    But it's the whole concept of Cartesian systems representing 'motion' that has proven invalid. Einstein's intuitive 'planes' and solid 'bodies' were correct. Descartes 'Wire frames' are no more valid for motion as geometry and the 'vector space' it spawned. Dynamic logic, 'evolution of interaction' and 'time stepping' maths are required.

    I know that hasn't answered your questions in the terms you'd expect, but a simplified reality does seem to mean challenging more assumptions than we thought we'd ever made. Does it really sound like nonsense to you? That seems to depend on peoples level of in-Doctorination. But do keep asking. If you find the time, I do have a quite long draft paper covering many other aspects that'll need reviewing. In fact it appears we may have a bit of a collaboration going. If you're interested? mail me direct.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Tom,

    It's a slightly bizarre experience reading someone's new take on a familiar construction. I recall answering some questions on it due to the David Whiffen link, and I may still have an Email address. There's nothing I'd say is wholly 'wrong', but much I'd express rather differently. It seems to have been derived from my 2010 essay and a few but not all of my past papers.

    I don't agree it's true to say it "supports the ether drag hypothesis" as it doesn't need 'ether' at all, however the 'long range' effect from a diffuse particle medium (WHIM) is equivalent. It reminds me I've always been astonished that the master of magnetohydrodynamics and up and down shifted scattering, George Stokes, didn't put that theory together with his 'drag' thesis to find the DFM 'atomic scattering' based logical solution.

    It's also very far from 'complete' and I'm now chomping at the bit to offer some re-writes and additions, but am not sure of it's status, how to do so, or even where it's posted as it doesn't seem to be live on Wikipedia.

    Do tell me which bits seem wrong or not logical to you, or gaps, and I'll try to draft some corrective or more explanatory notes.

    thanks

    Peter

    Ben,

    I didn't fully answer 2; No, Dark Energy isn't suggested as 'explained', except as the form of energy that matter 'condenses' from. The reason NASA took so long to get a good measure of ion density is because the probes and instruments propagated more ions ('pair production') via disturbance, or 'compression' (seemingly producing twin vortices, or 'toroids' with multiple spin axis energy, rather like these. Again, most of the properties we 'measure' are affected by measurement process.

    But the particles are required to modulate em wave propagation to local c. They are then the 'instruments' of the dark energy field, in a beautifully simple system, where relative motion itself propagates the means to change propagation speed to local c.

    The way I view it is that we only know ANYTHING by it's characteristics. So we know as much about dark energy as anything else, we just haven't got a name for what it's 'made of'. But what's in a name? I once christened it 'comprathene', a sub 'matter' form of energy locally 'at rest', as opposed to 'matter', which is the same stuff NOT 'at rest' wrt the majority.

    Ether is too emotive a word, and Einstein was right about it not 'modulating' speed as such, or forming an 'absolute' background. It was just the further assumptions from that point on that took us off track. In the DFM it's simply a local non-absolute background, and condenses matter to do the modulating wherever needed. It was just one of the models I falsified, and the only one that passed, with a perfect score and building a heap of evidence in the process, while removing all paradoxes and anomalies. Is there an 'itch' you want to scratch in physics? Try it and report back.

    best wishes

    Peter

    Tom,

    An interesting new MNRAS paper on Dark Matter near the Sun, consistent with the DFM's underlying mechanism producing curved spacetime in a quantum friendly way, this one also on arxiv here. Carefully analysed it is clear it disproves Eddington's assumptions, but also confirms Einstein's predictions for the precession of the Mercury perihelion, but also now consistent with the quanta. Stunning stuff, but entirely consistent with pretty well all recent astronomical findings.

    I now have permission to edit the DFM article, but nobody knows how! Any ideas? It is the same Judy who commented on my essay, and wrote the David Whiffen biography. The link with David and his work was a little tenuous, based on his pioneering spectroscopy work, but spectrosopy is at the heart of astronomical exploration and astrophysics, and the model, logically resolving just about all the many issues in astronomy, may not have come together without him. It's a shame astrophysics seems to have to rely on old physics theory as the foundation for interpretation, otherwise it would all seem to make perfect sense!

    I hope you can help me understand how best to address reservations about the model by identifying perceived issues. Judy's proved helpful as one fresh pair of eyes, but is in physiology not physics or astronomy.

    Thanks

    Peter

    Jim,

    An MNRAS 'Dark Matter' paper also on arxiv. I thought of Mario and you when reading it. July 2012 paper. It's consistent with scores of others, right or wrong, but uses a different method to constrain particle densities. It's treated as I suggest, simply as 'matter' that is not yet within our limited detection capabilites (which may soon be changed by Gaia etc).

    'Optical' images are also improving, and right out to cluster scale. The concept or term 'exotic particles' is very rarely used in astronomy. The 'warm hot intergalactic medium' (WHIM) is far more familiar. i.e. as this weeks ESA bulletin; Combined Planck optical image

    I believe that should give you more than adequate evidence to back up the lead proposition in my essay, and hopefully clarify the understanding of 'dark matter' in astronomy as opposed to in 'theory'.

    Best wishes.

    Peter

    PS I'll also post this on your own string.

    Hi Peter,

    I referenced Judy N's article because I can follow it, while I have a hard time following your own presentation. I'm afraid that, like Tejinder Singh, I learned things in a particular way that automatically filters concepts for the most general facts. Your net is apparently made of finer mesh.

    Anyway, as I said, I managed to isolate four statements that I feel competent to comment on. The first was:

    "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."

    I replied: 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"

    You replied in part: "I see the links with your work, but not with the 0.86c and time (redshift z = 0.8) since deceleration became acceleration. However, I do agree acelleration 'in the other direction', and indeed identify a fully fledged physical (small scale) model of it in AGN (ion) jets. The 'balancing' jet may correlate with the other half of each re-ionized body having a predominance of anti matter."

    The acceleration parameter I propose assumes a normalized c = 1 (remember, I hypothesize a cosmic binding energy). Therefore, the percentage of c (~ 86%) that limits acceleration at the horizon is equivalent to maximum redshift, normalized to unity. Negative acceleration in the other direction is just a way of saying that inertial symmetry applies (equivalence principle) while an absolute acceleration limit of 1c would imply infinite acceleration.

    In relativity theory, massless photons are emitted (born) at the speed of light and if not absorbed by electrons are slowed at varying rates in their travel through massive media, as you note. The absolute speed of light independent of mass is still c. Most often not taught, however, is that for relativity theory to work, it must be symmetric with faster-than-light particles, called tachyons -- which are also massless and born at the speed of light but can never slow down. Even though tachyons are not observable, even in principle, they define a horizon sharply demarcating action in one direction from the other (equal and opposite), thus preserving the laws of motion.

    So when you talk about relativity paradoxes (and I realize many do, even when no paradox exists) I think you reach the right conclusions though relativity theory is itself adequate to explain them. E.g., "If there really is such a concept as 'Proper Time' (an emitted time period measured from the same state of motion as the emitter or propagating medium), then there must also be an 'improper time'."

    Right. Relativity accounts for this, however -- in the symmetry between photons and tachyons. Relative motion does not violate Newton's laws; rather, it extends them. Proper time can only ever be measured relative to the limit of c; Newton's absolute time is replaced by an absolute speed limit to physical communication.

    You write: "Using this (improper) time we then get APPARENT speed, which is different to PROPAGATION velocity. When actually ARRIVING AT a detector, the interaction itself modulates the speed to the local propagation speed c. That itself gives CSL FOR ALL OBSERVERS EVERYWHERE. i.e. the 'apparent speed' of an approaching rocket may be ANY speed subject to the speed of the observer, but it's real speed cannot be found without interaction, which changes the speed (to max c) which = CSL."

    True. The physical laws are the same for all observers anywhere, and all observer frames of reference are valid. Because there is no privileged frame, "all physics is local." Physical influences cannot communicate nonlocally.

    Here, though, is the meat that you bury in too much fat: "Relativity derived from the quanta (atomic scattering), with no paradoxes. Ether as such is NOT required but space is NOT empty of quanta, just diffuse. So a local 3rd frame CAN and DOES always exist, but a LOCAL background, not the single absolute background AE had to ban."

    Einstein in fact -- like Descartes -- never accepted the idea of "empty space." This is expressed in the statement: "No space is empty of the field." The quantized field is not compatible with a continuous field theory, and that's why we have quantum field theory and its string theory extension. Einstein did not do away with the ether; the quantum vacuum plays the same essential role of a propagating medium.

    Now, if you can bring yourself to settle down (!) instead of scattering your own energies (and I mean this in the kindest way) -- the deep issue of "deriving relativity from the quanta" is *the* issue of unifying physics. I noticed George Ellis commented on it in your forum, as well.

    My own approach to that question is to derive quanta from relativity. (However, these approaches are dual to each other in the same way as the integral and differential calculus are dual.)

    The idea you advance -- that one might show light speed in "quantum clouds" as relativistic without assuming unitarity -- is an excellent idea, I think. It's plausible that classical-analog light effects in the quantum domain may be tractable to experiment that eliminates the boundary between quantum and classical domains. This would complement other efforts (Joy Christian, et al) to derive classical results from quantum phenomena in a locally real framework.

    Go for it!

    Tom

    Tom,

    This may be a seminal moment. To find the logic from your very different viewpoint is a task I'd started to think too difficult. Too be honest you were a litmus test, but how can the result be generalised to the more deeply inDoctorinated?

    I agree focus on the fundamental QM==>SR of the DFM has drifted as I chased down and falsified objections (which has exposed much new physics I haven't yet discussed!) I'm also fielding verifications of aspects in 'new findings' every day. Now 'Susy's out of the way I love Judy and will try to use her clarity of presentation.

    You say "go for it". Thanks, but there's a small problem there. I've been 'going for it' for some years but PRJ editors and reviewers seem terrified of the models 'unfamiliarity' so won't touch it. Even using various different angles and aspects hasn't worked. ArXiv won't accept papers, and it seems even Judy's Wiki article was removed! Work goes on but it needs help (including an arXiv endorser!) and all is welcome. Christian has looked, but speaks a different language to the ontology. Perhaps you might help/collaborate there? at least as a translator?

    On a specific note, you've given me a new view of 'Tachyons', linked to Minkowski's "imaginary" 1908; "cases with a velocity greater than that of light"

    I don't pretend to comprehend all your points above, as you don't mine, but, as you say, the fundamental of Unification is the big prize.

    All thoughts and help appreciated. Do let me know if you'd like to read other papers. A few earlier ones are on Independant Academia with this; Aberration Paper. The Hadronic Journal (latest) paper isn't yet out, but 2 more are on the way.

    Many thanks for your encouragement. The golf clubs are back in the shed.

    Peter

    Peter

    Peter,

    Thanks for the references. I'll try to review the research report later.

    However, wouldn't 'warm hot' baryonic matter, configured as a vast, gravitationally bound, rotating galactic halo ~3 times the diameter of the visible galaxy, that was sufficiently dense to produce the observed flat rotation curves of the visible galactic disk - necessarily emit detectable EM radiation?

    Also, at least the ESA article you referenced makes no mention of 'WHIM' as dark matter - it instead states that astronomers cannot find as much baryonic matter as expected:

    "But there's a problem: the amounts of baryonic matter detected via astronomical observations in the distant, ancient Universe and in the nearby one do not match. Astronomers have struggled to locate about half of the baryonic matter expected to be present in the local Universe."

    The article goes on to suggest that undetected WHIM constitutes the missing BARYONIC matter - not any dark matter.

    Thanks,

    Jim

    Hi Peter,

    One can still find the DocJudith article archived on the 'net.

    I expect that it got dumped from wikipedia because the references are vixra and arXiv non-peer reviewed publications. It was my own unpleasant experience earlier this year to get myself banned indefinitely from editing on wikipedia -- (and I don't even care about getting reinstated) -- as a result of one individual's shameless manipulation of the process combined with the naivete of the apparently youthful administrators. After a few exchanges with the individual in question and Jimbo Wales himself, I concluded that wikipedia is useless for just about anything deeper than celebrity gossip; the online "merit badges" that the members of the editorial club collect are demonstrably based on quantity, not quality. At any rate, the organization gets no more support from me (and this follows years of plumping for them, contributing money as well as time and knowledge). A good idea gone bad.

    So I wouldn't invest a lot of value in archive publications and wikis. In this age particularly, open source trumps anonymous review -- (that was one of my main complaints about the wikipedia martinets, a lack of accountability hidden and protected by anonymity) -- and new ideas actually have a better chance than ever of seeing daylight, allowing that they are seeded in nourishing soil. I found egregious that wikipedia editors refer to Joy Christian's body of work as "self published" as if self-underwritten in a vanity press. The real case is that implied academic endorsement (and funding) always ran concurrent with the overabundance of negative academic criticism. To call Christian's work "self published" is disingenuous at best, and in my non-legal opinion, potentially libelous at worst.

    With that -- let's continue trying to find what's novel in a "discrete field model." I have the same objection to the terminology as I had when you introduced it years ago -- a field is not, in principle, discrete. Because a field has elements that are discrete, field models are continuous. Yes, I do understand invoking Einstein's (and Descartes') aphorism that "no space is empty of the field" -- what Einstein meant, however, is that field influences between bodies are connected, not discrete; i.e., the continuous functions that define physical event space are not bounded (The general relativity model is said to be "finite but unbounded" for this reason.)

    I said I isolated four points of the article which I am prepared to address. The first has already been discussed (and I may return to it later). The second is:

    "An emitter will also emit waves at 'c', but, if in motion through a background field, once in the particle boundary with that field the wave velocity will immediately change to 'c' with respect to that field. This simple balanced symmetrical solution appears to match all observation without paradox."

    Many if not most quantum theorists will insist that relativity is background dependent. For good reason -- the quantum model requires a 2-dimensional (Hilbert space) background, and this dimensionality is assumed to be an inert playing field in which for all interactions t = 1. In the spacetime physics of relativity, though, the physically real continuum is a participant in physical interactions. Therefore, I think most relativists and string theorists (I could probably come up with a reference by Joe Polchinski if I had to) will say that a completely relativistic theory including the quantum field theory extension called string theory, are not background dependent.

    So I think that would obviate your statement that any new physics is introduced by a moving emitter. More later.

    Best,

    Tom

    Tom,

    Thanks. Einstein's small space s moving within space S as Hilbert spaces, which may both contain quanta at rest, are implicit in QM but not in SR as presently interpreted. You can't then say; 1. 'A 'field' can not 'in principle' be discrete', then also 2.' There's nothing novel about the Discrete Field concept'!!

    It's that very discretion of a 'space', implying boundaries, that is the entirely new concept. In fact the 'field' may equally be considered as a cloud, but not just a cloud of individual particles moving THROUGH a space, but as a whole 'inertial system' at rest, where the background is equally moving past the cloud.

    i.e. I'm not surprised you find the 'discrete field' concept entirely alien, it is, that is the whole point. And it is ALL about the boundaries. It is at the field boundaries where the new underlying quantum mechanism occurs to derive the classical effects of SR. They are simply dense ionized 'transition zones' or 'scattering surfaces', giving the anomalous "frames last scattered" of the CMBR.

    Once we identify what to look for, there they are! staring us in the face, (just as Einstein predicted). 'Collisionless shocks', Fine structure/surface charge, Maxwell's near/far field 'transition zones'. ALL matter has them when in motion wrt a background. All they actually do is absorb em waves and re-emit them at c (but the new local c of course). They are hydrodynamically mixed across their thickness. That's where your auto gearbox 'torque converter' (TC) comes in; the particles one side are at rest there, and the other side at rest there, with turbulence between. Look at a vector field across a TC and you find the rotating version of the vector field across a planetary bow shock (see 'Cluster,' & Kingsley-Nixey essay Fig 2.).

    Now your Question; Waves LEAVING an emitter, say radio waves leaving planet Earth, travel at c wrt Earth until the shock, then travel at c wrt the solar system. So changing speed, just like when arriving. (At smaller scales the 'surface effect' is rather closer). That is a fact from radio telemetry, but until now it's been entirely unexplained. The explanation unites QM and SR.

    The only problem seems to be that mankind struggles badly to assimilate unfamiliar concepts, as you're still struggling now even after clear glimpses, Yes? So does that now resolve the 'c wrt emitter' postulate conundrum?

    And I agree about Wiki. It's dumbed down backward science, and self appointed policemen are the worst. Power corrupts! Perhaps suggest to Jimmy that science is about advancement, which is CHANGE, so he divides the Science part into 'History of Science' (Old established concepts) and Advancement of Science (as yet unproven, like ALL advancement!

    Peter