Perter,

Thanks so much for another lecture, but it seems you are still ignoring the evidence provided by the separation of gravitational potential and x-ray emitting gasses in galaxy cluster mergers. Again, the consensus interpretation among professional astrophysicists seems to be that this provides clear evidence of dark matter's existence since the lensing effect attributed to it cannot be produced by the ICM.

Also, please be aware that we have not been discussing the thesis in my essay at all - we've been discussing the thesis of Mario's essay. I think that Mario's thesis is valid and provides support for my thesis, but I already had supporting references in my essay for models producing observed spiral galaxy rotational characteristics without dark matter or modified gravity.

I'd be more than happy to discuss the thesis of my essay any time you wish, but we have not been addressing astronomers' invalid expectations for spiral galaxy rotation that led to the erroneous requirement for galactic dark matter.

Back to your thesis, I urge you to very carefully consider the evidence provided by the separation of gravitational potential and x-ray emitting gasses in observations of galaxy cluster collisions.

Sincerely, Jim

  • [deleted]

  • Post #183

Jim

If someone resists accessing actual evidence but proposes something contrary that's fine, but that's called speculation not science and I'm sure you can judge how its veracity is viewed.

You now 'urge me to consider' evidence assuming I have not done so for both that and far better evidence very closely for some years. You assumption is incorrect. But I also still don't agree your characterisation (last para). I'll do my best again to explain, as long as you don't call it 'lecturing'!

When galaxies and clusters collide, let's say the 'fine structure' (whatever) surrounds them is disturbed. This is invariably found as more dense CO and molecular gas towards the barycentre and a more diffuse electron based plasma (when detectable) towards the outer halo (or IGM/ICM). (They overlap because one begets the other!) Now I'm sorry, but if you've studied as much data and research as I have over the years you will find a clear pattern, consistent with the following description (and I'm not just spouting any mainstream 'dark matter' theories).

The molecular gas clouds are only concentrated in different parts of space to the plasma because they 'started' in different parts of space so are affected differently. Now the lensing found does not 'JUST' correlate with the visible molecular gas, at WHATEVER wavelength it scatters light (normally investigated at multiple frequencies). All the condensed matter there is assumed to have gravitational potential according to it's mass just like it does in our back yard. The change in motions of the visible matter correlates with this basis and provides an approximation of density of the NON visible 'clouds'. These are normally thus considered as 'dark matter', either as some exotic new particles or not. I propose not, because the densities are consistent with electron densities found locally (The Kingsley Figure 2 I referred you to, and the international standard ionospheric model at up to 10^14 particles/cm^-3 at shocks).

Now there is also other evidence, quite complex, but lensing is the main and largely independent second 'check'. It quite simply does not correlate with the visible gas, at least 'alone'. But now we get into interpretation'. Mainstream uses 'curved space-time' to estimate galaxy mass, but gets anomalously high masses. More and more (inconsistent with relativity) use my method of diffraction by matter for lensing (as smaller lenses) which is more consistent with the REAL data (Sauron, Atlas 3D etc).

The lensing then simply implies spatial distribution and density. Most of mainstream just call it 'dark matter density', but that just means it's not visible and includes a broad church of options. Plasma 'scatters' far better directionally than gas (that's what 'self focussing' means). So that's why the gas visible at X ray has no effect on lensing, which is indeed a proof of the plasma thesis. (Unless you really believe the nearby galaxy cluster 'bends' a pure vacuum - as current mainstream expects us to, but that gas does not).

Now I've tried other models which don't work, and tried for some time to falsify (NOT verify!) this, but failed. Yet I still have an open mind.

Now none of this has much to do with my essay, which just exposes the underlying quantum mechanism the 'particle' based lensing implies, and more than a handful of other anomalies. But you did ask.

I'm sorry if your beliefs and Mario's thesis are different, that's fine let them be if you prefer, and as I recall I have no problem with any other parts, but I don't believe in hiding from inconvenient scientific truths, and hope you're the same.

Peter

Peter,

We're now discussing my claim that the separation of lensing effects and x-ray emitting intracluster media falsifies your assertion that the effects attributed to dark matter can be attributed to plasmas. Please do Mario the favor of excluding remarks about him from this discussion, as he has made no such claims and in fact I've had no discussions with Mario about this claim of mine. He has nothing to do with this discussion - this is just between you and me.

Secondly, as I have provided several sources that conclude that the separation of lensing effects from x-ray emitting gases in high velocity galaxy collisions provides evidence for the existence of enormous masses of not just 'non-visible' matter but effectively non-interacting non-baryonic, weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). Please see Chandra posting. This is not just 'little old me' making this claim, it seems to be the consensus "mainstream" astrophysical community.

As I understand, 'undisturbed' galaxy cluster morphology can be generalized as tending towards a spherical distribution of mass centered around a common center of mass, generally coincident with the geometric center of the cluster. There the gaseous intracluster medium is densest and hottest, emitting high energy x-rays. There is also often an enormous galaxy located near the center of mass.

The consensus interpretation of collided galaxy clusters, as I understand, is that the disperse gasses comprised of baryonic particles physically interact upon collision, absorbing their momentum slowing their forward motion.

It is thought that the colliding clusters' sparse galaxies do not physically interact - their momentum allows each group of galaxies to continue their established relative motion until gravitation eventually slows their progress.

The gravitational lensing effects of collided galaxy clusters are typically coincident with the location of the two separated groups of galaxies. However, since the collective mass estimated for the galaxies is thought to be insufficient to produce the identified weak gravitational lensing effects, it is presumed that enormous amounts of dark matter coincident with the galaxies is contributing most of the mass necessary to produce the identified gravitational lensing effects.

It is crucial to understand that the inferred dark matter could only be coincident with the two groups of non-interacting galaxies if the dark matter was also non-interacting. The only interaction that could have occurred between the two groups of galaxies and any possible dark matter was gravitational.

The principal requirement for the inferred dark matter is that it could only have gravitationally interacted with any of the clusters' mass upon collision. As I understand, the p[articles of colliding plasma clouds would physically interact much like the hot gases in the intracluster medium - their forward progress could not have continued such that they would located coincidentally with the sparse, non-interacting galaxies.

If you can explain how ionized gas or plasma particles within the two colliding galaxy clusters could have avoided all physical interaction with other disperse particles, allowing their momentum to carry them along with the clusters' galaxies, I'd be very happy to try to understand.

Sincerely, Jim

Peter,

We're now discussing my claim that the separation of lensing effects and x-ray emitting intracluster media falsifies your assertion that the effects attributed to dark matter can be attributed to plasmas. Please do Mario the favor of excluding remarks about him from this discussion, as he has made no such claims and in fact I've had no discussions with Mario about this claim of mine. He has nothing to do with this discussion - this is just between you and me.

Secondly, as I have provided several sources that conclude that the separation of lensing effects from x-ray emitting gases in high velocity galaxy collisions provides evidence for the existence of enormous masses of not just 'non-visible' matter but effectively non-interacting non-baryonic, weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). Please see Chandra posting. This is not just 'little old me' making this claim, it seems to be the consensus "mainstream" astrophysical community.

As I understand, 'undisturbed' galaxy cluster morphology can be generalized as tending towards a spherical distribution of mass centered around a common center of mass, generally coincident with the geometric center of the cluster. There the gaseous intracluster medium is densest and hottest, emitting high energy x-rays. There is also often an enormous galaxy located near the center of mass.

The consensus interpretation of collided galaxy clusters, as I understand, is that the disperse gasses comprised of baryonic particles physically interact upon collision, absorbing their momentum slowing their forward motion.

It is thought that the colliding clusters' sparse galaxies do not physically interact - their momentum allows each group of galaxies to continue their established relative motion until gravitation eventually slows their progress.

The gravitational lensing effects of collided galaxy clusters are typically coincident with the location of the two separated groups of galaxies. However, since the collective mass estimated for the galaxies is thought to be insufficient to produce the identified weak gravitational lensing effects, it is presumed that enormous amounts of dark matter coincident with the galaxies is contributing most of the mass necessary to produce the identified gravitational lensing effects.

It is crucial to understand that the inferred dark matter could only be coincident with the two groups of non-interacting galaxies if the dark matter was also non-interacting. The only interaction that could have occurred between the two groups of galaxies and any possible dark matter was gravitational.

The principal requirement for the inferred dark matter is that it could only have gravitationally interacted with any of the clusters' mass upon collision. As I understand, the p[articles of colliding plasma clouds would physically interact much like the hot gases in the intracluster medium - their forward progress could not have continued such that they would located coincidentally with the sparse, non-interacting galaxies.

If you can explain how ionized gas or plasma particles within the two colliding galaxy clusters could have avoided all physical interaction with other disperse particles, allowing their momentum to carry them along with the clusters' galaxies, I'd be very happy to try to understand.

Sincerely, Jim

    Jim

    Than was rather dense with assumptions with which I disagree, and also read like more of a 'Lecture' than my reply! A most fundamental one made is that dark matter 'can't be baryonic' or interact. This is certainly often suggested but far from proven, and there's ample evidence of gravitational interaction (also with and of galaxies themselves when close enough to do so). If we start from different assumptions we can't fail to end up with different conclusions.

    (Your comment in para 2 seems to suggest you agree with high densities of non-baryonic 'dark matter', but perhaps you could clarify).

    As you seem resistant to investigating n-body systems semi-analytical modelling of evolving gravitational effects (consistent with my thesis and most patterns found) I've tried to find some good quality non speculative papers on arXiv. there are precious few. However, one of the top teams in the field, led by Kevin Pimbblet, have logged some MNRAS papers there. One much cited work is here; http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.0711v2.pdf

    Please do read it all through carefully, (you'll notice it presents maximum data and findings but draws no conclusions where uncertainties remain) then perhaps we'll be able to communicate properly on more solid foundations rather than simply state different beliefs. You'll note the comments about Xray detection and electron densities, which are consistent with most data and PRJ papers, if not with a number of other theories, some of which you cite. Both are valid, but overall weight of (real) evidence does lean heavily towards ions. I should add that ions here while referred mainly as free electrons include the other fundamental particles including positrons, as found happily annihilating away recently in the ionosphere!

    Do revert once you've read the paper.

    Peter

    Peter,

    There was NO assumption that dark matter cannot interact - that was established by the evidence - the location of the identified lens effects relative to the point of collision and the non-interacting galaxies (I'm specifically referring to the Bullet Cluster here). Again, this is not just my interpretation but, as best I can determine, the consensus interpretation of the astrophysics community. Whatever produced the lens effects could not have physically interacted with any other material during the collision.

    The disperse x-ray emitting gas from the two galaxies did interact, that is why they remain near the point of collision - unlike the non-interacting galaxies and whatever produced the lensing effects.

    I asked one thing of you - to explain how disperse ionized gas or plasma particles could have proceeded far beyond the point of collision, as did the galaxies. You have not complied. Instead you dismiss the compelling visual evidence that the lensing source (including the clusters' galaxies) did not interact during the collision.

    That the lens effects remain coincident to the galaxies following collision indicates that the galaxies almost certainly contribute to the identified weak gravitational lens effects. No dark matter would be necessary if there were some systematic error in the estimation of collective galactic mass, but I am not capable of identifying any such error, so I cannot make that claim. The alternative is that weakly interactive massive particles are present contributing to the lensing effect also produced by the clusters' galaxies.

    There is no need to complicate this analysis - as established by consensus, the location of the lens separate from any gaseous matter is clear evidence that the identified weak gravitational lensing effects could not have been produced by any disperse gaseous material, including molecular gas, atomic gas, nucleons or electrons, since disperse particles within the two colliding galaxy clusters would have interacted as did the x-ray emitting gas.

    The onus is on you to disprove the consensus interpretation that the separation of lensing effects from gaseous galaxy cluster intracluster media precludes their contributing to the identified weak gravitational lensing effects.

    Jim

    Jim

    What you 'determine' as the 'consensus of the astrophysics community' is most certainly not. I already pointed out that was 'cherry picking' from the full gamut of theories available, which is simply not what astronomers do.

    I'm sorry but if you don't wish to look at the full evidence, and maintain a 'partisan' not balanced view, there is no more to discuss and your proposal is unlikely to be taken seriously by the 'astrophysics community'. I have serious research to do and can now afford no more time on this.

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #189

    Peter,

    When the observer starts moving TOWARDS the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L. When the observer starts moving AWAY FROM the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c-v)/L. Can you justify these frequency shifts based on your light-changed-speed-on-arrival theory? You write in your essay:

    "If light travels at a speed of distance d divided by time t (d/t = km/sec) then how can it be found always at c (~300,000km/sec) by all moving observers? A simple answer would be that light changed speed on arrival. Light would then travel at c= d/t through a background medium, but change to local c when meeting an observer."

    Pentcho Valev

      Peter,

      This discussion is about your proposal - I'm suggesting to you why the astrophysics community will receive your proposal, that the effects most generally attributed to dark matter (WIMPs) are instead caused by ionized gas or plasmas, with a great deal of skepticism. Feel free to ignore my advice about your proposal.

      Jim

      • [deleted]

      • Post #191

      Peter,

      You wrote: "In the Doppler shift case, due to motion (in non-zero time) it is distance that changes. So shifts in f are found because effective L [L is wavelength] changes on interaction with a detector."

      When the observer starts moving TOWARDS the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L. Is this frequency shift due to a change in the wavelength? If yes, start from the wavelength change and derive the frequency shift. If not, the frequency shift is due to a speed of light shift: relative to the observer, the speed of light shifts from c to c'=c+v.

      When the observer starts moving AWAY FROM the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c-v)/L. Is this frequency shift due to a change in the wavelength? If yes, start from the wavelength change and derive the frequency shift. If not, the frequency shift is due to a speed of light shift: relative to the observer, the speed of light shifts from c to c'=c-v.

      Pentcho Valev

      Pentcho

      Yes, but different for each observer case. Case 1 is for an observer remaining at rest in the APPROACH frame as the new medium passes him by (he can thus only see the passage of light waves (or lets use a string of pulses) via scattering from the particles of other medium). ANSWER; He sees apparent c+v. But remember nothing anywhere is REALLY breaching c, he's just an Einsteinian so fooled by the sequence of fairy lights in the other medium each lit up in turn by each pulse and scattering light at c. So ALL light really does c (modified by any n value

        Hello Peter, hope this finds you well. Inspired by you, I have taken to encouraging essay writers to read and rate their fellow contest contributors' work.

        This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

        This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

        Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

        A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

        An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

        Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

        Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

        Thank you and good luck.

        Vladimir

        Peter

        Yours is the only essay exposing new underlying physical reality. I've just read it again, and there was far more detail embedded than I recalled from the first read. It's a bit of a brain teaser folowing the implications of 'evolving interaction' as you put it, but an eye opener. I'm very please mine is compatible and describes the 'frame boundary' physics. I particularly like you 'fluid dynalic coupling' (or 'magnetohydro'-dynamic..) analogy.

        I think you desereve to win by far. Quite brilliant thinking.

        Very best of luck in the final results. Let's hope you find an intelligent and open minded judge who can see it.

        Peter

          Richard,

          Very Kind. Yes I agree its a major advance, of physics if not of understanding (quite yet). It is quite difficult to assimilate the mechanism, particularly as evolving kinetics are involved, and as it is indeed an unfamiliar concept. You flatter, but you too found one of the key mechanisms, which I think opened the door in our mind to the whole picture. For most that door is still shut, and they can't be blamed for that. I confirm the helical or twin vortex toroid soliton wave/perticle you describe is also straight out of the top drawer and consistent with my 'Discrete Field' model (DFM) as well as others here. I assume that was you above by the way, with similar 'cut'n paste' issues to those we're all having. I'm taking Brendan's advice and mainly writing elsewhere and pasting in when done (says he writing this reply straight in!)

          The subject of this competition was ideal for finding new physics to rid us of the confusion, but it seems we all have to dig deeper still to extract the hidden assumptions. Many thanks for your support. Last year I called the essay '2020 Vision' as a double entendre stating that I estimated it would take until 2020 before the way out of the mess I present is actually fully understood and starts affecting things. I always was an optimist!

          Best wishes

          Peter

          Pentcho,

          Yes I can show delta lambda, but you must drop those assumptions to see it. The above post crossed in cybersapace with yours of 15.32, and got cut in half! So first I'll complete that, with Case 2, then reply separately to the 15.32 post.

          In case 1 of an observer fixed in the APPROACH frame you'll have seen once a pulse enters the new lump of medium moving past him, he is allowed to see APPARENT c+v because nothing actually breaches c (If you find anything doing so let me know).

          CASE 2. Is an observer accelerating into the new medium rest frame (or comparing notes after the event with the one in the approach frame). In the case with the new medium moving AWAY from the source; At rest in that medium he obviously (?) finds the wave peaks further apart. Now just freeze frame and step backwards in your mind and think a bit. We know VERY WELL that all high frequency waves are short, and all low frequency waves are long for any given speed, and we also know JUST AS WELL that wavelength changes with frequency in Doppler shifts, because ALL experimental evidence finds precisely that when dealing with emitters and with media. Many have assumed, as have you, a 'simpler' condition for a receiver where the wave is absorbed. I will show you it is however the SAME condition, because the lens medium comes BEFORE the processor (brain) NOT in the same place or after it.

          The lens medium is n=1.38, and the waves or signal pulses pass through this and along the optic nerve BEFORE they can be timed and frequency calculated. The brain tester is the entirely separate shift due to relative n. But if we set the two refractive indices the same the net delta lambda due to relative V is exposed. It looses it's hiding place and comes to light (to the intelligent mind).

          The calculation is a little complex due to the motion of the refractive plane during the two peaks (or pulses) meeting it. So it needs f - c/L with the change in L modified by vt and a z or gamma factor, because this is a 'Doppler LT'. Enough for now as there's a lot of new thinking to absorb, but I'll give you an analogy for delta L giving delta f in answer to your 15.32 post.

          Best wishes

          Peter

          Pentcho

          Analogy; You shrink, and sit at rest in the NEW medium frame (K' at n=1), which is doing v through the background frame (K at n=1). You are at the refractive plane with a tape measure and a stopwatch. Your bird at rest (K) in the approach medium has told you the approaching waves are doing c and are 10 metres apart in her frame.

          As a wave hits the refractive plane (at relative c+v until the collision) you hook the end of your tape measure to it and start your stopwatch as it continues at c in the new medium frame (K'). Now when the next wave hits the refractive plane you look at the tape measure. Because you are approaching the oncoming waves you find a SHORTER distance than 10 metres! Only THEN can you check your watch and calculate the frequency (actually your mate 'Brains' who does that is well behind you up the optic nerve). Now the trouble with Brains is that he can calculate 'f' ok, but he can't see the big picture, so the silly sod complacently assumes his simple maths are good enough to describe nature. As a number of essays here point out, maths is only a very simple abstaction. In this case it was TOO simple. It is wavelength LAMBDA that changes to give the inverse change in it's time based observable derivative 'frequency', conserving c in all frames.

          Back at the BIG scale, what we've all been missing is the important detail, and we've just been making that dumb simplistic assumption that we can ignore lambda. That wrong assumption is what has maintained the current paradigm and paradoxes. There can be no detection without a lens medium, all lenses are made of dense matter, and all matter re-scatters absorbed energy at c. Local c. NOT some 'absolute' c.

          There are three elements to your formula; f, c, and L. If f and L change inversely c is conserved. All precisely as always found. There never was a need for the assumption of "no background frames" implicit in the STR, background frames are always LOCAL or 'discrete', not absolute, so fully equivalent to the almost infinite 'compound proposition' structure of logic. The POSTULATES of SR are then identified as not the problem, and are logically produced by the quantum mechanism of Raman scattering, Unifying physics at last.

          Note, there are a number of 'cases', which are the cause of confusion, of both observer frame and signal transitions at frame boundaries. The Cartesian system must be completely abandoned. It uses geometric 'vector' space and motion is not a valid concept in geometry. Inertial frames are simply 'states of motion', so apply to ALL matter in relative motion, and are separated simply by an acceleration. Length contraction is then simply what happens in a car crash! Nature is far simpler than old physics, just unfamiliar at first, as Feynman predicted. And that is the ontological construction of the 'discrete field model' (DFM).

          Do re-read the essay with that new light pouring in, ask any questions, then mark your own papers and pass me the scores.

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #198

          Peter,

          "we also know JUST AS WELL that wavelength changes with frequency in Doppler shifts..."

          This is simply not true. At least for waves other than light waves, when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the wave source, the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, the speed of the waves relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v and the wavelength remains unchanged: L'=L. This is trivial, Peter.

          Pentcho Valev

          • [deleted]

          • Post #199

          Peter.

          I will reply to your post here under your thread, in two parts. This is part I.

          You wrote about my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

          "Viraj, We agree about the inherent foundational errors and seemingly most other things. Perhaps we view the world similarly, ....... Super essay, I agree with almost all, and a good score coming. I felt while reading that I could almost have written it myself, but probably not as clearly. ...... I decided a while ago that we need "to find ways to explain these phenomena as in terms of states of changes of energy."

          I hope what you wrote is your genuine and sincere opinion about my essay.

          But something that I am non-plussed about is that if your essay and mine are so similar in content, how is it that your essay is in about the 15th position in Community rating and mine is at around the miserable 140th position and keeps going down whenever someone hints at giving it a high score? It so happens as a rule, hints of mutual back-scratchings always end up in backstabs!!! I am in this competition not to play such games.

          I wonder whether your 'play' is about fact or fiction. Certainly it seems the Act 1 (in your essay) is based on some whimsical fiction - that the frequency f is a derivative of distance and speed; and lamda is a primary entity. This whimsical notion about the frequency befits more about playing "Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark" than 'Much Ado about Nothing' for the following reason.

          In a photon the general formula for its energy E = mc2 takes the form hf. So f has to be fundamental. Also frequency f and wavelength L (lamda) are variables such that f x L = c . This is similar to the conjugate variation of pressure and volume under Boyle's law.

          On the other hand h although outwardly appears as an immutable constant, it has its own internal composition where h = mcL and these components m,c, L, vary against each other while maintaining their product constant at h as follows.

          (1) When there is a change of medium or a change of gravitational potential, c changes to c', conjugately varying with m (to m') while L remains constant and f changes to f' so that f' x L = c'.

          In the case of a change over to a medium of a higher refractive index, since c' less than c, m' is greater than m., and f' is less than f.

          Since hf' is less than hf, this implies that the photon has lost the fraction of energy h(f-f') to the field. When it emerges back in the original medium, the process is reversed and attains the value for its energy E = hf by influx of the fraction of energy h(f - f') from the field.

          (2) When moving within a given medium, and when the photon confronts a constraint, the internal composition of h = mcL changes in a different manner. In this case mass m and lamda L vary conjugately to m' and L' while the linear velocity c remains constant.

          At the same time f and L also vary conjugately such the f x L = f' x L' = c. When energy is in the mode of photon, unlike a fermion, it responds to constraints (within a given medium) by changes of frequency INSTEAD of changes of linear velocity. In a Doppler shift, when the receiver has a velocity -v relative to the photon, the relative velocity of the photon does not become

          c-v, INSTEAD its frequency directly changes to f' = f(c-v)/c. In such a case since f' is less than f, L' is greater than L, and in turn m' is less than m. This means hf' is less than hf, which can only happen by losing the fraction of energy h(f- f') to the field.

          THIS IS HOW THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT C', REMAINS CONSTANT LOCALLY, IN A GIVEN MEDIUM OR AT A GIVEN GAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL.

          The whole constipated situation about the constancy of the velocity of light has been because both proponents and opponents of SRT have taken up a kinematic standpoint instead of a dynamics one. And in addition SRT cannot offer the above solution because it starts by shooting itself in the foot, by postulating that a photon has no mass (when what it does not have is the property of inertia).

          Best regards,

          Viraj

            Dear Peter,

            I feel the need to highlight your powerful words of wisdom here:

            "The subject of this competition was ideal for finding new physics to rid us of the confusion, but it seems we all have to dig deeper still to extract the hidden assumptions."

            We would probably all like to rest easy. But not only do we all seem to need to work hard to properly understand one another, the understanding we reach together is yet another challenge going forward.

            Thanks for your observation,

            Steve

            • [deleted]

            • Post #201

            Peter,

            Nice use of literary allusions in your essay. I want to answer the charges Viraj had made about possible backstabbing and scoring in this contest as that might seem untoward. Beyond the quality of the essays which of course differ, there is likely to going to be a strong correlation with the number of people who read and score one's essay. You are one of the most friendly of all the contestants and have commented on many of the essays in this contest. In fact, you have also promised a large number of the essays good scores, as can be seen be doing a google search using: site:fqxi.org "jackson" "score" '2012". So it is understandable that if some percentage of these folks actually read your assay and find it interesting, you will receive more good scores than an essayist that is not as well known.

            Fred