Frank

"I don't think Einstein really understood the characteristics of electromagnetic (EM) fields and the medium in which they are permitted to propagate"

As far as I understand it we still don't. Also as an outsider, I get this impression of most people addressing what was said then as if it had just been said yesterday. When Lorentz postulated dimension change there were no cars, planes. Then we had two dreadful wars and a depression in between. Then the likes of me and Peter were born. In other words, although it appears 'not long ago', it was a completely different world.

Also, in my reading of these papers, as an outsider, which has value because I just read what is there, they were really talking about the electrodynamics of movement. Light just got 'muddled' up in this, one reason being that an expectation about the speed of light was what prompted the whole train of thought. Another one being because light speed was substituted for distance, incorrectly, in a (non) equation of time (ie it involved the concept of 'then' back, so a constant was attributed with variance. Instead of being A-B or B-A which is the same, the two became different).

On the subject of action. By definition, only that which existed at the previous point in time can potentially have any influence, and even then, by definition, that which can, will be limited to that which was adjacent to. In simple language, something cannot be directly affected by something unless it is next to it, and something cannot be affected by something which did not exist immediately previously. Now, that all might sound a dreadfully simplified summation of a very complex circumstance. But this is the power of considering things generically. Forget all the content-'wood for the trees' stuff. You alight on the essence of the problem here with the word "appears". Fundamentally, we are sensing a movie, but in explaining it, we are not decomposing to the single frame level. Which is differentiatable by reference to the fastest rate of change which occurs in reality (ie a clock based on this unit of timing would 'reveal' all).

Paul

Frank

Yes, and AE would have grasped at the 'locality conditionals' as 'Local Reality' was precisely what he was after in the end. Not just P&P but 2.72 degrees etc.

In terms of the 'photons field' I see that more as the photon itself spreading it's energy out into a wave pattern as it 'dissipates' as an 'entity'. The wave energy is then of many photons, and on the next charging interaction (over some 10^-9 secs) another 'entity' is emitted (Raman scattering).

The really tricky thing to grasp from my paper is the second 'velocity change' between media. Our minds are poorly developed to rationalise it and it needs rehearsal as it is hiding right before our eyes and impossible to 'see.'; I agree entirely with the 'velocity change' quantified by (not 'due to') the refractive index n of the medium. ('due to' is fooling ourselves). But what then if the medium is in co-motion with the other? We can rationalise a block of glass in a vacuum on Earth, but what about one doing 0.2c through space?.

This is the entirely independent kinetic change at the refractive plane. It is the frame transformation. n is a constant in glass whether doing 0.2c through space or at rest in the lab. Ergo; The 'velocity change' is due to relative n PLUS relative v. I identify the quantum process and effects which are massively important and resolve about every fundamental problem in physics.

But virtually invisible to human brains it seems? I'm sure you glimpsed it and it evaporated. That's it's party trick! Can you see it right now?

Peter

Paul

Light 'muddled up' with SR is certainly a view, but consider that light had long been established as just a short band of the em spectrum, so was always central to the 1905 paper. The solution he went for was quite inspired, unfortunately simply wrong. A simpler one existed, not spotted.

This is still difficult to 'spot' and absorb today, based on the process I describe in my essay and in the post to Frank above. Can you spot it? I'm afraid you've so far failed to get close!

The irony is that the solution is covering the lenses of our eyes, and indeed all our detectors.; Light changes to local c on arrival AT that layer.!!!

That is SO self apparent and consistent with the evidence we really can't spot that we haven't spotted it in our theory! It is the 'kinetic' speed change. And when we do so it pretends not to exist and disappears again.

Don't loose that as it's slippery as an eel, so come back to it, but as far as SR goes he saw he had had 2 options.

1. An absolute Ether background frame.

2. No Ether or Ether frame at all.

In fact there was a third option, undiscovered until now, that resolves all the issues;

3. Local 'ether' or matter frames (non-absolute).

Where a frame is simply a 'state of motion'. How are you doing with those deeper levels of understanding? You WILL need to read it at least 3 times and think hard to form a new 'hook' for it in your mind.

Peter

    Paul

    'The bullet is travelling at c'. Agreed. 'The bullet is travelling at c-v'

    Make up your mind!! why should one observer off the train have any preferential treatment over any other, i.e. those ON the train!

    And what would happen if Earth were moving in the opposite direction and the camera was on the space station, would THEY be the preferred observer?? And if the bullet is fired on Mars and we video it from here. Who gets to see it at c and who at c-v then????

    The whole point your comprehension has not yet reached is that there is NO preferred observer outside the frame in which the bullet travels! (i.e. can use 'PROPER TIME') As Einstein suspected.

    The real and simple solution is that those on the train, whichever way it is going and at whatever speed wrt Mars (we are now also considering a train on Mars, why not!), The passenger will see and be hit be hit by a bullet travelling at c. This is because the whole train, air, passengers and gun IS an inertial frame K, in which, as Galileo and Einstein correctly assumed, the speed limit c and laws of physics are identical to ALL other inertial frames. K'<

    Or (your analogy was good but incomplete) do you really think the Keystone cops cars actually went at 100mph. There are TWO observable 'speeds', as Lorents suspected (1913); 'real' and 'apparent'.

    A hundred other observers on a hundred different planets will receive scattered light signals at CSL (like a movie projector) at c, telling them the bullet went at c wrt the train, or wrt Mars if the train was parked. So their cameras record 'APPARENT' c+v, which is actually 'real' c, precisely like the Keystone cops.

    Now you tell me which part of any of that breaches the speed limit c.

    Peter

    Peter

    I was not happy with my notion of how the possible first order of dimension alteration was 'written off', as per above and in a response to you in a thread above started by me. I would say, after further disentanglement of this 'hall of mittors' that it was simply a case of realising it is omnipresent, and anyway, most light we are considering is generated within the earth's atmosphere. So for practical reasons, it was 'written off'. Concentration then turning to the gravitational force effect of dimension alteration.

    Paul

    Paul

    You are indeed in a hall of mirrors. The simple answer is not there. It's no good going round in circles, you must escape totally to a higher level.

    It's Classical Physics (Relativity) that is not consistent with Quantum Mechanics so it is these two which, quite famously to physicists, need 'unification' to make sense of nature Paul. You really should refrain from dictating what 'is' and 'is not' without doing the years of homework it may take you to get a proper understanding of why they are not compatible. Doing so just means everyone will write you off as a fool.

    Unless you realise what the problems are the chances of resolving them will remain at zero.

    All sensible physicists now very well that they 'do not know'. However, to have someone arrive afresh and claim he does 'know', only classifies him as a complete dimwit in their eyes! In fact the more a genius knows you should find the less he claims to know. There are no 'facts', only opinions, agreement and dssention.

    Peter

    Peter

    "Make up your mind!!"

    I said:

    1 "The speed of the bullet wrt to the video camera, or anything else on the platform, is not v+c The bullet is travelling at c, you said so. It is not part of the train. Unless the train is hermetically sealed, in the sense that it is solid. In which case the speed would be the composite speed wrt all that which was on the platform.

    2 "For somebody or something on the train, indeed including he train itself, the speed of the bullet is c-v wrt these things, assuming the bullet was fired in the same direction as the motion of the train, because they are travelling at v, you said so".

    "why should one observer off the train have any preferential treatment over any other, i.e. those ON the train!"

    It is not preferential, it is a function of wrt. Any judgement involves a reference, and, by definition, the outcome of the judgement reflects the reference used. Any reference can be selected, but to ensure comparability, consistency of reference must then be maintained. In other words, to establish a comparable set of speeds in this scenario, one could select any of the entities involved and assess the speed of the others wrt that. This is proper referencing.

    The other point is that you keep assuming that calibration of speed is a function of observation, which it is not. What people or cameras see is irrelevant. Observation, physically, is a function of light, which are (because there is more than one) just additional physically existent phenomena, along with trains, cameras, observers, etc, in this mix of variables.

    "The whole point your comprehension has not yet reached is that there is NO preferred observer outside the frame in which the bullet travels!"

    See above. Apart from which, this 'frame' you refer to must be different at every point in time, so how does one have comparability of results, and how does one reference everything else to that? Time, as I said in the post, has nothing whatsoever to do with it. This outcome is a function of physical existence. There are things (including light) in relative spatial positions, which are changing in relative spatial position. That's it. Timing is external to this, it is a method for differentiating what is occurring at any given point in time (if we could ever have a timing device that good) across the whole spectrum. So at point in time A, the train is spatial position X, light which is going to reach platform observer spatial position Y, bullet in spatial position Z, etc. Then at point in time B...Etc, etc, etc.

    "we are now also considering a train on Mars, why not"

    Indeed, you can put the train anywhere, and reference the calibration of its speed to anything, just maintain the referencing rules. It makes no difference, just gets more difficult, taking trains to Mars that is!

    "The passenger will see and be hit by a bullet travelling at c. This is because the whole train, air, passengers and gun IS an inertial frame K, in which, as Galileo and Einstein correctly assumed, the speed limit c and laws of physics are identical to ALL other inertial frames".

    The passenger will be hit by the bullet travelling at c wrt to him (or her), (assuming they are in front of it!) because they are on a train and are travelling at the speed of that train, in the direction it is going. So is the gun and whoever fired it. The air is not of the train, unless the train was hermetically sealed. This is the physics of the circumstance. It is not about frames. Which as I have said many times before, are about referencing, not observation.

    Lorentz expressed misgivings about the highjacking of 'local time' to account for dimension alteration. But he appears to have been swept away by the tide. Which all starts with the incorrect definition of what constitutes simultaneity. Here is a quite from my post on my blog (11/7 19.33):

    3 The A & B example (copied from Poincaré) in Einstein section 1 1905, is not correct. The timing of existence is not the same if entities are in the "immediate proximity", and then different if they are not. All entities are at a different spatial location at any given point in time, some are just further apart than others. Different entities cannot be at the same spatial point at the same time. And timing is just a measuring system. So, select a particular point in time, and whatever existed then, did so, even if it is 10 trillion light years away. Each entity, except when it is in the "immediate" proximity" does not have its 'own time', and then there is a "common time".

    4 Einstein: "We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" t(a) from A towards B, let it at the "B time" t(b) be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time"t'(a). In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if t(b) - t(a) = t'(a) - t(b)".

    5 The distance between A & B is the same, by definition, whether it is expressed as A-B or B-A, because it is a difference. It is incorrect to express this in terms of how long light (or anything else) takes to travel one way and THEN the other. The important word being "then". If light speed is constant, it is just the same as using a ruler, or any other measuring tool. The particular use of light speed is pointless. But the problem is that this single distance (a difference) is being expressed as a difference between two different timings (what is used, so long as it is constant, is irrelevant). The equation should be: t(b) - t(a) = t(a) - t(b), which is the same as, and as meaningless as, A-B=B-A. A constant (because there is only one), ie the distance, is being expressed in terms of variance between two different measurements. Timing has been reified into physical reality.

    6 This mistake then becomes embodied in the expression of light speed in terms of timing and distance. Hence c = 2AB/(t'(a) -t(a)). The real question here being: what has light got to do with it? The answer being: nothing. The fact that it enables sight is irrelevant to what constitutes physical reality.

    Paul

    Peter

    The point you make is not a response to the point I was making, which related to a better explanation of how the 'first order of dimension alteration' was resolved away.

    In reponse to what you do say, a better approach would be to question how reality occurs first, since that is what physics is establishing knowledge of, then it would become clear what 'unification' comprises. I am not dictating what is. Oh that I had such powers. I am saying a) physical existence is independent of sensory detection, b) physical existence involves alteration. Which, unless one invokes beliefs, I think is true.

    "There are no 'facts', only opinions, agreement and dssention". Not so (!). Do not forget, we are assembling knowledge of reality here, not reality. By definition that is a closed system,because we are part of it, and therefore potentially fully knowable. And there is a factual answer in every circumstance. In some areas will may well never 'get to the bottom of it', but that is a failure on our part to discern what is there

    Paul

    Peter

    re the cryptic word "muddled" have a look at my post my blog 11/7 19.33. Rather than me reating it here. I will refrain from responding to what you said here for now, because it's tea time. By the way, our little dog (Ralph) was used in a photo shooy today for an ITV programme.

    Paul

    • [deleted]

    • Post #74

    Paul,

    "In other words, although it appears 'not long ago', it was a completely different world."

    I do not know how old you and Peter are, but I received a General Class Radio Amateur license in 1948, when I was in high school, thus I have been aware of the electromagnetic (EM) world for some time. The environment in which EM waves propagate has not changed one wit since Hertz demonstrated their propagation, and cars, planes, wars and economic depressions have absolutely no influence on it. Peter stated the problem correctly by the quote in his essay:

    "The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them." Sir Wm. Bragg.

    More on that in my response to Peter.

    Peter,

    Your quote, "In terms of the 'photons field' I see that more as the photon itself spreading it's energy out into a wave pattern as it 'dissipates' as an 'entity'. The wave energy is then of many photons, and on the next charging interaction (over some 10^-9 secs) another 'entity' is emitted (Raman scattering)."

    The first sentence is somewhat like the concept presented by J.H.Field with the virtual photon, it has an influence beyond its EM dimension, its wavelength. The second sentence implies that a photon can change its basic characteristics, and this is true when you consider what happens to photons (EM waves) when they propagate as solitons. Einstein was in one of several generations that ignored the concepts identified by the Korteweg-de Vries equation (KdV equation for short) as applied to EM propagation. Some of the unusual effects observed from large object gravity shielding can be explained if gravity is an EM wave that propagates as a soliton. Interacting solitons can result in an abrupt change of direction of the field vectors, something that does not happen with the interaction between two conventional transverse EM waves.

    In the 1990s, research on EM solitons revealed they could be exploited for long distance communications, and the results have been spectacular. This is why I constantly remind individuals of the existence of permittivity and permeability, as these characteristics have to exist for an EM wave to propagate, and as a soliton. It is necessary for one of the EM fields to have a longitudinal component for it to propagate as a soliton.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #75

    Peter,

    "... not causal on refraction. This then allows the logic of physics to emerge. Indeed we have not yet found any actual mechanism or complete intuitive explanation for refraction!"? Where is the problem?

    Thank you for commenting on Cahill and providing links. Being interested in pure experimental results rather than combinations with hypotheses, I did not yet find a description of Michelson/Morley type experiments within vacuum as compared to within gas. I am just having no idea what makes the difference. Wouldn't such difference be a gradual one depending e.g. on density?

    Eckard

    Frank

    Interesting. I wasn't familiar with KdV but find consistency with the soliton approach. I have assumed gravity in a topological / energy density way which is consistent with a standing soliton wave. Finding a natural step from here to the translating soliton (in a medium) is a bit beyond me at present.

    I consider that the gravitational infinity of a singularity is complete nonsense as the soliton would produce the standing the toroid model of an AGN and magnetosphere, and have a Lagrangian point at it's centre of mass.

    We do of course find such points at all centres of mass, (zero potential) so why do we assume singularities?

    The Gaia probe, which should verify my stellar aberration model, is planned (ESA 2013) to sit in one of the (5) Lagrangian points in the Earth-moon-sun system orbiting the sun.

    My intuition is now that P&P may be largely a matter medium quality, i.e. that the diffuse free electron (etc) plasma permeating space can modulate em waves but the 'dark energy background' can only propagate it at local c. When two dark energy 'space-time geometries' (clouds of ether if you wish) interact they produce tiny handed (twin? - i.e. toroid?) vortexes we call electrons etc. These then implement the modification to propagation speed to maintain c locally. A VERY important function!

    Can you rationalise the implications of that in terms of the SR postulates from the Quantum mechanism?

    These ions would also have their own quanta of gravitational mass, but implement 'curved space time', (or let's say 'precisely replicate' it) by coupling interactions. Each if them is then surrounded by a toroidal 'soliton' (topograhical again) which it carries with it until meeting an opposite handed vortex set, when they blend back into the 'ether'. ('are annihilated').

    Do any of those ramblings make sense to you? The problem seems to that even the basic kinetic foundation of the model seems incomprehensible to many. Not just because most seem to think they know how things work already so don't try, but because our minds have not evolved to visualise the effects of multiple sequences of relative motion from different frames.

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #77

    Peter,

    Lagrangian points are a physics fact. Fortunately, Lagrange identified them before Einstein created the concept of curved space-time, a "physics fiction" that has put a strangle-hold on many aspects of scientific inquiry now for almost a century. Einstein developed his theories with "incomplete information", because he, his generation, and all those preceding, did not recognize that the system we live in provides mechanisms for the efficient transfer of energy, and the soliton is one manifestation of the mechanism.

    The Newtonian instantaneous action at a distance (NIAAAD) within solar system dimensions and somewhat beyond, everywhere in the universe, is revealing another characteristic of the energy transfer mechanism. NIAAAD provides a specific delay in the dispersion of mass objects rotating about a sun, allowing specialized forms of energy to develop, which we quaintly refer to as biological life.

    I have no idea what a "dark energy background" is. I'll stick to P&P, as we have observed EM velocity changes when the wave enters and exits materials with different values of P&P.

    Frank

    I've never considered NIAAAD as you describe it, and certainly not as providing a dispersion delay allowing us to exist!

    Do you not agree that a topological 'gradient', pre-set before a distant body arrives, finds and negotiates it, is mistaken for action at a distance? (as in a Gaussian 'pressure distribution'). In astronomical terms there is even "no consistent relativistic theoretical basis for the ecliptic plane" (i.e. IAU 2000 and USNO Circular 179; p6.) let alone stellar aberration (the 'constant' dropped in 2000 as 'falling raindrops' just don't accurately predict the effect).

    Peter

    Hi Peter,

    Whew! I have to reiterate the comment from my own essay site about my being not so ambitious. :-)

    I like the "world's a stage" metaphor. Your stage seems to be filled with strange characters from an Ionesco play, or maybe those in a Fellini movie doing all sorts of unrelated crazy things at once. And just maybe that's the way the universe really works, though I'm betting that there's a "center" to that action to which all the characters have to return.

    We also seem to agree that this center is everywhere though hidden, with a critical difference:

    When you speak of light speed determined by absorption and emission, you imply an observer-created reality. I say this, because the mechanics can't be symmetrical, and say something novel, as -- if I understand you correctly -- is your claim. You say light rays (or photons?) change speed (negatively accelerate) on detection and accelerate on emission by the same detector, which violates the second law of thermodynamics unless the negative acceleration on detection is equal to the positive acceleration on emission. So even if that's what "really" happens, the measured physics can't differentiate the phenonemon from a constant speed of light -- it's just as useful to say that light doesn't accelerate, that it's "born" a constant. That was Einstein's problem with the ether. It may exist -- we just don't need it to explain experimental results.

    Thanks for an enjoyable read. Best wishes in the competition.

    Tom

      7 days later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #80

      Hi Peter,

      I like your paper. It has a composition of poetic style while also expressing some very important ideas. You are very right when you say that "both ontology and experimentation are required". The physics community needs to be reminded of that, often. I also agree with you when you say that there really is a medium.

      I did find a minor typo, "Entering the new medium frame K' of of index n' (moving at v with respect to the incident mediums frame K), light changes speed by Dn Dv." Of course, two "of" doesn't change the meaning.

      Overall great paper. I think you'll do well in the contest. Good luck.

      By the way, do you think this ontological medium has any relationship to quantum mechanics? Would you care to describe it?

      Hi Peter,

      That was me. I thought I was logged in; oops.

      Jason Wolfe

      Jason

      The process derives Relativity direct from known Quantum Mechanisms, but how much 'relationship' to original QM is a good question. In uniting SR and QM both are slightly re-interpreted. Relativity is given a 3rd fundamental option, not requiring either an 'absolute frame' or 'empty' space, and QM is rendered deterministically consistent with Local Reality and Joy Christians findings.

      Uncertainty is, as Heisenberg suspected,simply about diffraction and more complexity that we can currently resolve. Navier-Stokes hydrodynamics reflect it well.

      The rotation of optical axis from 'asymmetry of charge' due to lateral motion is entirely new and precisely derives 'curved space time' in line with Minkowski's 1908 conception, just interpreted slightly differently by reviewing later assumptions. It only takes non-point particles and dynamic logic to find the massive solution. Maths cannot do so yet as it assumes point particles - another major incorrect assumption hiding the truth!

      I'm disappointed few seem to grasp the importance or understand. Kinetic thinking is unfamiliar to most. But I'm impressed that you've at least partly succeeded. Thank you.

      Peter

      PS. Thanks for spotting the typo, there was also another, but Brendan couldn't replace it (suggesting most have typo's).

      Peter I agree with your statements that spacetime is nowhere empty - there is no real vacuum anywhere in the universe. Hence there are indeed preferred local rest frames everywhere. This is tied in to the point that universe on large scales is better described by general relativity than special relativity. Any cosmologically realistic general relativity solutions has preferred rest frames. But this does also mean that special relativity calculations are not sufficient to analyse all this in depth - one needs to extend to general relativity (which I tried to explain using only ordinary calculus in my book Flat and Curved Spacetimes, written with Ruth Williams).

      George Ellis