Eckard

This 'Nature' paper confirms the superluminal jets, which are seen as up to 9c. You only have to look at Wikipedia and the hundreds of papers (all by 'serious experts') http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v354/n6352/abs/354374a0.html

My last post somehow got 95% 'chopped!' I explained the two component causes. The first the well known Rees-Sciama effect (geometric) but with limited angular domain. The second; jet collimation. Simplified; Inside a flow of material is a rest frame, through which a flow may do max c, and a pulse in that flows rest frame may do max c etc. From the Hubble frame apparent 3c-6c is very common = local max c.

I'm surprised you're still questioning this as it's such common knowledge. Just type 'superluminal jets' into Google.

Your comments; 'vehimently argue' and 'defend myself' are a bit alien to me. As a scientist and Astronomer I can only 'point out' the evidence and 'explain the logic' of what I see as the most logically consistent interpretation. I see us as in a discussion and 'learning' not 'adversarial' forum.

It's also clear from the second part of your post that you haven't assimilated or retained the fundamental points in my paper, which considers the inertial frame of each electron the approaching waves meet, i.e. it's 'first encounter' with ANY and all matter. You blandly state; "this does not change the frequency" but offer no evidence, logic or explanation, which means it can be no more than a belief. Please read through the essay again now carefully, and you should then fully comprehend my reply to that part of your post (very shortly).

I should say by the way that your stated position is not a shock to me, it is the assumed position which I am pointing out has kept mankind in the dark for so many decades. All you have to do is some 'science', which is to 'suck it and see'. The results ability to finally explain all observation without paradox is as strong evidentially as the logic of the mechanism. If you wish to disagree then please find fault with either of those more critical aspects rather than use prior assumptions, which I point out are poorly evidenced.

That is after all the whole aim of this competition! Yes?

Peter

Eckard

Close your eyes, spin round 3 times then approach afresh. I hope you'll by now have re-read what I wrote and better understood it. If the detector

1. Is not made of matter. (i.e. does not exist), or

2. Misses the incoming photons/waves (they carry on by).

Then you would be correct. Relative frequency would be caused just by motion. However. He cannot detect the photons in either of those cases.

The ACTUAL situation is that the photons hit (or are propagated when the waves hit) and are absorbed by the very first surface free fine structure electrons of the detector. NOTHING can be detected unless this happens. You personally may best understand this zone as Maxwell's TZ. The moment these particles start re-emitting at c, the wavelength has changed because the particles are moving (in the detector frame).

You suggest it's the retina cells that work out the frequency. Certainly they may do so if they're given their own calculators, but even then they are way behind the implementation of delta lambda. The frequency changes THE MOMENT the wavelength changes, which is why they do so inversely, and the MOMENT they are absorbed and re-emitted.

Now you may take your blindfold off and see what has REALLY been going on. It is not the simplistic metaphysical thing we have assumed, it is the real quantum mechanism of atomic scattering, involving re-emission at c.

This real quantum mechanism naturally produces the same effects that SR was cobbled together to try to explain, (with all it's paradoxes and avoiding any link with quantum mechanisms).

There is ONE good reason NOT to believe the above, but only this one; The reason is that it is entirely new to us, unfamiliar, and contrary to what we have believed all our lives so is ingrained. We are religious creatures with brains still evolving, some more advanced than others, so most will not be able to assimilate such a change for that reason. I accept that, but of course unfortunately it doesn't relieve me of the task to explain, for those that can.

Entirely thankless task I'm afraid, but I seem lumbered.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

Your hint to a 1991 article about apparent superluminal jets does not confirm your idea. I see it one more reason not to trust in what you are offering. Even if there was evidence for a really superluminal motion, this would not imply that waves can propagate faster re medium than given by the property c of that medium.

Your reasoning starts with the wrong for waves in the far field assumption that the wave speed re medium depends on the emitter.

You are questioning my completely rejecting judgment of your wishful thinking even concerning acoustic waves and the physiology of retina. Your lack of knowledge in these areas is obvious to every expert.

Even those who feel unable to judge your idea should be deterred when thy realize your inappropriate habit of rewarding those who are distinguished by swallowing your idea.

I am curious whether or not an expert like Steve Sycamore will support you.

Eckard

Peter, congratulations on making the list of finalists!

And sorry for the delay. I needed a break from physics and enjoy some birthdays going around. I don't do physics all the time, like most people here. For me it's a compulsion that comes and goes and usually does not last this long. Suddenly I felt exhausted. But it's not over for you, lol. Enjoy the ride!

Re time, no matter how good an explanation you come up with, I cannot agree, simply because my conception of time is totally different. To me, it is what emerges locally and completely dependent on local conditions. I understand that we are wired in such a way that we examine whatever process in the framework of absolute time in our heads, but I do not believe that this abstraction exists in reality. Just like some people here argued for absolute reference frame. The same there, to me it's an abstraction that cannot be head in reality. But let's see what the panel of experts will say on these matters. Perhaps I simply do not understand your point.

Thank you for your comments on my essay in my thread. I understand that you read it very fast and based on this formed an opinion of it having "lost touch with underlying reality with... extra dimensions". Oh well, lol, I understand your take, even though I hoped that I did a good job explaining on the example of Flatland how we could live in 4D and not know it. See, in 4D the paradoxes vanish and a very coherent scheme of the universe emerges. I especially thought that my idea of how gravity works in 4D was interesting, explaining why voids are empty (that's where repulsive aspect of gravity lives) and even referenced a paper that describes the deformation of a dwarf galaxy in a nearby void, very much in line what the logic of the scheme I proposed.

Don't know if you will feel like reading my essay again. You probably have not read quite a lot of essays too. I know I have not and need to catch up. It was just impossible to read them all in a short time and give each a deserving evaluation. That's what makes your interest in my essay especially valuable to me and also understandable why you did not see it the way I did. I should have written it better! lol

Again, congratulations on making the list of finalists and good luck with the rest of the competition!

-MV

Hi Peter,

I am curious. Do you have a direct link to the APS blog comment in question? I don't do LinkedIn so the link you provided will not connect for me. Sorry to see it, if someone is stirring up trouble, though.

Jonathan

    Hi Jonathan,

    The comment in question has been removed from the APS blog, perhaps because I flagged it to be inappropriate, or perhaps because I threatened the author with a legal action. It was part of the character assassination campaign against me that has been going on in some private blogs for some time. A couple of bloggers (who are physicists, computer scientists, a statistician, and one failed essayists of our contest) have gone as far as manufacturing comments on their blogs on my name (i.e., as if the comments were by me admitting something or other or saying silly things). The idea behind the campaign is to discredit my work by discrediting me personally. Such character assassination attempts usually work. Since the rumours are circulating and added to for over a year now, some young and inexperienced students fall for them and spread them further, and that was the case in the now removed comment on the APS-Linkedin blog.

    Joy

    Jonathen, Joy.

    If you're an APS member just email your member No to pede@aps.org for "immediate access to the discussions." They say "Non-members are encouraged to participate in discussions, but comments may take up to 2 business days to post."

    Fred commented, and I did also send another, pointing out such comments showed the standard of professionalism in physics in the poorest light. It wasn't posted, but may have helped removal of the offending post, and the subject leader then posted;

    "I meant for this thread to be light, but I think Peter has a very good point. Thanks, Albert also for the link. It also says some of what Peter is saying.

    I don't know that I want to close this thread yet (by the way, just in case, how does one do that?) as I hope it does not turn into heated discussions about theories between people who will never reach any understanding.

    I had an officemate in graduate school who once asked whether people would have taken Einstein seriously if he had been yelling out his theories on the streets wearing a white robe (that's a reference to one of the Tintin albums for those familiar with the series) instead of talking in university seminars."

    (The link was to Margaret Worthiams book)

    As I'm both an FRAS and RIBA I can draw some comparisons between the professions. Let me say that it appears there is room for improvement in some science education at present. Inclusivity and general attitudes can be very poor, top to bottom. As has been said here, A PhD gives us a right to be wrong, not the right to be right that the more arrogant try to assume. It's no wonder scientists are loosing public trust!

    Peter

      I'm curious myself to know what happened. I responded to Peter's link on my linked-in account, then got a message that my access to the APS discussion group was "awaiting approval" though no such approval has yet been granted.

      Tom

      Eckard

      You suggest my; "reasoning starts with the wrong for waves in the far field assumption that the wave speed re medium depends on the emitter."

      Quite the contrary. So that error explains your erroneous view. The far field waves in my model are entirely dependent on the far field rest frame. i.e. the medium. It is only the degree of Doppler shift that ais derived from emitter speed. Only the NEAR field waves have any relation to the emitters motion. I'm perplexed that a few weeks ago you'd grasped and agreed with my essay, now you have forgotten or changed you mind. Is there an explanation?

      I'm also not sure I understand how you can have "one more reason not to trust" my model from my citing a Nature paper and giving sources for hundreds of others. I assume perhaps, as seems to be your way of working, you did not use the sources or read the papers? I have also made it very clear many times that NOTHING exceeds the speed of light locally. i.e. in ANY medium. Any observed 'superluminal motion' is then only ever 'apparent'.

      You had neglected to mention you were an expert on the physiology of the retina. My co-author John Minkowski (optics/opthalmist, and son of quantum optics Professor Jan Minkowski) asks you to provide evidence for your assertion and accusal of 'wishful thinking' and 'lack of knowledge'.

      If your criticism of collimated motion was about just providing one link, I then provide more. Please advise how many you may desire. If you'd also like some on the Rees-Sciama effect I'll be happy to oblige.

      http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2448

      http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004256

      http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v56/i2/p255_1

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v334/n6181/abs/334410a0.html

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v334/n6181/abs/334410a0.html

      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/159962

      http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0617

      http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9611023

      http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Superluminal.html

      Finally you say you're; "curious whether or not an expert like Steve Sycamore will support you." I defer to Steve's views, but you may again change yours when you hear them. If you had looked at Steve's comments on my blog you would see he, unlike many, did manage to understand the model, so supports it. I'm sure Steve will be happy to confirm his view.

      I'm now at a bit of a loss to see what your disagreement is, or why the vague insults. The way I do science may be a little different. I don't try to prove my theses but to disprove them. Mostly I succeed, but with this one I failed. I am quite happy if others succeed, but 'judging against beliefs' can't do so. Do you not agree?

      Best wishes

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #291

      Dear Peter,

      If a macroscopic mechanical spring operated mantle clock is moving close to and horizontally to the surface of the Earth at a constant velocity, will it physically undergo length contraction and/or time dilation. Will its time keeping function slow? Will the clock keep slower time than an identical clock sitting stationary on the surface of the Earth. Will its size or shape change compared to an identical stationary clock sitting on the surface of the Earth?

      If a macroscopic mechanical spring operated mantle clock is moved from a stable high position above the Earth, stationary with respect to a point of the surface of the Earth, to a stable position on the Earth, will it have changed size or shape and/or rate of its time keeping function due to General Relativity type effects? Will it physically undergo length contraction and/or time dilation?

      I am not asking about photons or doppler effects. I am not asking about any effects due to accleration. There is no acceleration of either clock with respect to the Earth. There is no velocity for the stationary clock. There is constant velocity for the clock moving parallel to the Earth. Please disregard any atmospheric resistance to the clock's motion. The moon could be substituted for the Earth.

      James

      Dear Peter,

      Congratulations with being in the top 10, you deserve it.

      I ended up 3,7, but got a lot of encouraging posts , which is for me important too, you know my subject "consciousness" is not an exact mathematical one.

      I am also following your APS comments (as you could see with the thumbs up I sent you.

      I wish you a lot of luck in the final votes.

      Wilhelmus

      • [deleted]

      • Post #293

      Wil,

      Thanks for the 'thumbs up,' keep em coming! and you congrats. I'm very happy with 7th both last year and this. If the judges simply passed it over again this year perhaps some fundamental questions should arise. It's been pointed out it's the only one actually providing a logically and mathematically consistent advance in fundamental understanding both years, which is after all the purpose of this site and contest we assume. Last years position was shown wrong at 10th at the time, which may of course have made the difference.

      I agree your own essays topic doomed it to ignominity. I recalled you were going to have another go at absorbing and assimilating mine. It's a daunting task, requiring suspension of some long held assumptions, but it's very rewarding, so I hope you do.

      Let me know how you get on. I really need to get a handle on presentation of the ontology. I suspect it needs moving pictures, which would need financing.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #294

      Peter,

      While your basic idea, its weakness, and its appeal are easily understandable, you managed to hide this simplicity like a magician behind various detractions. Let me assume that electromagnetic waves largely behave in principle like acoustic ones. Basically, you argue that the location where the wave has been emitted, e.g. the air within an air plane, can be called the local medium. Seen from the air outside, the speed of sound differs from c. You are calling this the apparent global view. The problem with your idea is that the medium (ether) has so far been considered like only one solid or a fluid (see the essay by Perez) without moving relatively to each other local regions of reference. It would still be acceptable if you merely did hypothesize maybe non-uniform streaming of dark matter although I guess there is no experimental indication that could justify such hypothesis in case of light, and seemingly increased in excess of c speed of acoustic waves due to non-uniform air flows is perhaps meaningless. Moreover the idea of dragged ether is not new.

      There are two reasons why I cannot accept your claims: One is wrong further argumentation.

      The other one is questionable maneuvers as to win support including unproved claims like this one: "Having undergone the pain of extraction of assumption 1 from our belief systems and used wide evidence to rebuild ontological foundations we find the quanta and classical physics unified, consistent with the SR Postulates and with Einstein's final conceptual monologue of 1952.4 The tale unfolds."

      You argued that light is always emitted with c relative to the local medium. However, the near field cannot play any role concerning the speed of a wave. It does not propagate. A re-emitted wave propagates independent of the motion of the emitter relative to the medium. This implies that the speed of sound can provable not exceed c relative to the local air. The same is certainly true for light. Now you seem to admit that superluminal speed is always an apparent one, i.e. an illusion.

      Of course I tolerate minor mistakes of you like "193,500k/sec". Inappropriate stage rhetoric, dominates your essay, e.g. you wrote: "a clearer light is now thrown on the stage so the mists should start to evaporate. Those with deeply embedded assumptions will be feeling the initial discomfort of unfamiliarity of the new views of nature". This is anything but concise, unusual in science but also not yet a serious imperfection. I even can guess that the smaller than symbol after c in "nothing, anywhere, is really moving at c" means in excess of c.

      However, I see you wrong when you claimed: "Unlike us, Einstein was not able to explore space and find it's qualities." I do not refer to your spelling of it's but I see Einstein definitely not stupid while most likely misled via Lorentz and others. You wrote: "Each medium or local 'space' is defined by a kinetic state and represents it's own 'space-time geometry'." This is definitely nonsense for acoustic waves.

      What about the references you quoted in your attempt to defend yourself, I wonder if they are backing your idea that nested re-emission can cause a speed of light in excess of c like in case of a multistage rocket. I guess the referred papers just reported apparent superluminal speed.

      While you seem still to assume that the speed of light can globally exceed c, I did not find the word global in your essay. If I recall correctly, LC used it in the discussion. Anyway, the attribute local makes only sense in opposition to something else.

      I did not vote on your essay. If I were forced to do so I unfortunately had to rate it worst. Sorry for that.

      Eckard

      Eckard

      You do understand parts, but than assume that small glimpse is all there is and assume the rest is just distraction. It is not. You have not yet assimilated the fundamental basis, which is that; 'Inertial frames', are REAL physical spaces with physical limits, and therefore have a physical 'boundary.' If you prefer to think of it as 'ether' then you must think of that as a medium, like water, where there is a 'balloon' around all matter, at all scales. Each balloon can move wrt each other. Light goes through rubber at c/n in the rubber's frame, and through water and c/n in the local waters frame.

      You suggest "wrong further argumentation", which I point out only 'appears' wrong due to using the wrong (and indeed problematic) initial assumptions. If you cannot review those assumptions it will indeed always 'look' wrong. However, you don't identify what 'argumentation', so please do to allow me to better explain.

      Again your suggestion of 'manouvers' is unsupported. Once you understand the model it becomes clear that the postulates logically emerge. Ergo: Once emitted and through the TZ, ALL em waves propagate at c irrespective of the speed of the emitter, i.e. they do c wrt the medium. Those waves approaching an observer are also doing c wrt the medium NOT the observer!! OK? However, when the interact with the observer (ANY matter) so are 'detected' by interacting with the new medium, they are, as PART of that process, converted to the local c. Mathematically the proof is simple delta lambda AND, inversely, frequency. So measurement of f always gives local c. The process, conditions and laws are the same within ALL inertial frames in the universe. So there you have the postulates of SR logically directly, clearly and logically emerging from a simple quantum mechanism of absorption and re-scattering. What then is your complaint!

      Your next para forgets the role of the TZ, which is entirely symmetrical (works BOTH ways). I have always, and repeatedly stated that superluminal speed is 'apparent'. The problem is people often remember what they think is written not not what is!

      I'm nonplussed by you suggestions that 193,500k/s in glass is a 'mistake' (please explain) also the optics convention; 'c and upwards'; c

      • [deleted]

      • Post #296

      Peter,

      I wrote: "X wavecrests hit the STATIONARY observer in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to him is XL, where L is the wavelength. Then the observer starts moving towards the light source so that X+Y wavecrests hit him in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L. Is that correct?"

      You replied: "Yes, but you must specify WHICH waves, because the interaction creates a 2nd set, which are the ones the processor (or brain) 'times' to find f. We may term there 'refracted' waves R. The incident waves 'I' are those which include both the approaching waves and those 'passing by' the lens (also then equivalent to 'forerunners'). "Accordingly, the speed of" THOSE 'I' "waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L" The speed of the R waves, which is the only ones we can directly 'time' to find frequency, is then c' = X/L'."

      Let me end the discussion in this way:

      The incident (I) waves are RELEVANT.

      The refracted (R) waves are IRRELEVANT.

      The "community" (or some guardian angel) gave you high rating but I am afraid your essay will fail in the end. That the Doppler frequency shift has nothing to do with brain processes is more than obvious.

      Pentcho Valev

      • [deleted]

      • Post #297

      Peter,

      I am not interested in useless quarrel. Just a few simple hints:

      k/s should read km/s, it's quality and it's ... geometry should read its ...

      I agree with Pentcho: Your essay will fail in the end. Otherwise I would lose my trust in the ability of the jury.

      Eckard

      Pentcho

      You needn't be afraid. This contest was about testing our ability to identify and abandon deeply held assumptions. It was not easy. Many have failed and religiously stuck with them, but others have proved it possible.

      I've suggested that (not as assumed) both waves (and thus frames) are relevant to allow complete understanding of nature. Incident waves to explain observed dt, and Refracted waves to explain the apparent constancy of c found by all observers on measuring f.

      It's interesting how we have no problem in accepting the wavelength change for the Doppler shift on emission between emitter and medium, but due to 100 year old over-simplistic thinking, and thus unfamiliarity, struggle so much to accept an identical wavelength change unavoidable on detection by a moving body, or at least it's importance as it is what observers 'find', implicit with the observed frequency and new c/n.

      It may be best that you do not agree that both are relevant. Overcoming the extreme troglodites of relativism will require out-thinking them, as just 'shouting' at them has had no effect. The difficulty of assimilating the new ontology is thus a useful test. Perhaps your own attack can even be used as a distraction while those who understood my essay work with me to slip a Trojan horse into their midst. I'll welcome you to the party if we manage to open the gates.

      See you then.

      Best wishes.

      Peter

        Eckard

        Thanks for the punctuation corrections. My preference is physics, but I will discuss what you wish.

        Perhaps you are correct and the jury will not be among those who can assimilate my necessarily complex ontological construction. I would not be shocked as it is indeed unfamiliar, as Feynman predicted the true answer would be (yet as would many others!) I do however have faith in their intellect.

        But I am again somewhat confused by your comments. You suggested that I "assume wave speed re medium depends on the emitter." so you 'disagree'. I point out that is not the case beyond the TZ, yet you still disagree without now offering falsification. Please do offer such falsification as I crave it and it has not been forthcoming.

        Best wishes for the judging.

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #300

        Peter,

        A light pulse reaches a clock and stops it, then (part of) the pulse reaches another clock and stops it. The speed of light as measured in the inertial system to which both clocks belong is equal to the distance between the clocks divided by the time it takes the light to cover this distance.

        If the inertial system starts moving towards the light source with speed v, then the speed of light AS DEFINED ABOVE:

        (A) shifts from c to c'=c+v.

        (B) does not shift, according to special relativity (c'=c).

        Which is true, A or B?

        Pentcho Valev

        • [deleted]

        • Post #301

        Eckard

        Your misnomer is not difficult to identify. As head of a university department I have to assess students capabitity to learn physiology. With mature students the problem is different, but it is resolvable.

        Let me first state my interpretation of the part of Peters multi aspect theory you disgaree with, but in your own field, of sound. An emitter, even a voice, but consider a trumpet, emits at a wavelength and frequency. If it then starts moving, then the wavelength (so frequency) in the propagation medium changes. So we have delta L. Now consider perhaps the detectors eardrum, to which an oscillation rate is imparted. (We are now entering areas where you nor anyone has given deeper thought);

        Those oscillations are (so initially try to 'emit') at some wavelength L. If at rest with the medium this may match the L of propagation (we may here ignone n). BUT, and this is the crux, if the eardrum start moving; the changed frequency of arrival means a changed wavelength of re-emisssion L' alongside the changed frequency. The logic is impeccable, it matches observation, and it is as brilliant as it is unfamiliar. With light waves the ontology is, surprisingly for many, identical. Lambda and frequency deltas are inseperable.

        But back to my students, and a more extreme example. An 18yr old told from youth that 'babies grow in the stomach' can normally accept that they do not. They grow in the womb. But a 50 year old may for 3 times as long have imagined the babies feeding off the digested food IN the stomach! They then struggle to 'step back' as Peter says, drop that assumption and replace it with something totally alien. (That was only one analogy).

        Accepting that this CAN happen is 'half of the battle'. But in the course of a thousand new things to learn, many more aged minds will come across a complete block and, sadly, have to be failed.

        At present you are a fail. You have done well with step one of five, but believe step one is all there is! Then, even even worse, you assume it it you who understand everything and that the others are fools. Well the fact here is that they are not fools! They have comprehended more new steps than you in this case. If you just consider that there MAY be more to understand, then you may be able to succeeed. It will be rewarding, as it was for me.

        This problem is not uncommon in education. You come across it each time you find someone insisting some nonsense is fact. But in this case the 'boot is on the other foot!' (do please forgive the coloquialism).

        I find to succeed in overcoming this problem is rewarding for all. Peter was correct in stressing the greater than normal mental effort it takes in this case, but it is quite possible, and I do hope we find success. I will keep a watching brief.

        Very best wishes.

        Judy

        In an iota; Think of that change to L' from the drum as it moves, compared to unchanged L. A Delta L to L' is undeniable. Repeat application is prescribed and should clear up the complaint!