Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

Eckard

You ask "For what reason do you exclude the possibility of just one common space?" It is because that concept only works 'locally', as, famously, do Maxwell's equations.

We first consider just one space at a time. But at the limits of each space there must be another 'common space', entirely equivalent. Then, as there are almost limitless cars, buses, trains and galaxies, there are, as Minkowski then Einstein (1954) concluded; "infinitely many spaces in relative motion."

In Nixey Fig 1. Yes, the spaces left and right are the same background space. But of course the centre medium n, in motion, is also a space is it not? And the waves within that medium propagate at c/n within and with respect to it. NOT c wrt the surrounding background space.

That 'surrounding space' may be the lab on the space station, which itself is moving at v wrt the space outside it, within Earth's ionosphere. And yes, I agree, that space DOES have a state of motion itself. It is not just MMX that falsified a 'single absolute space/frame' for all media everywhere, all of astronomy, optics and logic excludes it beyond question. That conceptual part is very simple. But what confuses most is;

Each 'space' then implicitly must be 'thought of as bounded' (not currently conceived, as pointed out by Einstein) and the boundary condition only needs to be a modulation mechanism. This is where the logic of absorption and atomic scattering at local c comes in, which is Nixey Fig 2, equivalent to a refractive plane of a moving medium (or the moving mirror surface charge).

So now consider your last line above. The 'moving' mirror is thick glass with a silvered back. Light does c/n through the glass IN THE MIRROR FRAME! So it then MUST change speed on exiting that frame into the DIFFERENT background frame. Yes? It is that speed change that is confusingly called the 'LT', and which gives the Doppler shift. It is implemented by re-emission at the c of the background frame. THEN all of physics falls into place. Including resolving all the anomalies I referred in my essay and many others there was no 'space' for (if you'll forgive the pun!) along with the other unique predictions.

If you still do not agree, then please do explain how light at c/n in the glass of the mirror can change speed to c in and wrt the vacuum, so by both n and v (mirror) without changing speed!?

Peter

Pentcho,

I venture you suggesting dt=c+v would be 'alien' to most. Just the suggestion of it for neutrino's caused major panics. Universal dt=

Pentcho

It seems I used the 'up to' symbol, wiping out 90% of my above post!

I think I discussed how 'alien' it is to most to conceive anything OTHER than dt=max c, or the max c (or c/n) always found locally within propagating media when using the standard universal assumption of frequency and wavelength being inversely proportional. How you think you stand a chance of convincing anyone of propagation at C+ you'd have to explain!

I agree the current assumptions are wrong. You then propose different assumptions, but they are LESS acceptable (right or wrong) and anyway also not consistent. This includes with optics, (try it on KRR!) and as an astronomer I've studied everything possible on the subject and found local c=dt to first order about the ONLY absolutely undeniable thing there is (i.e. binary star light absolutey does arrive together irrespective of emitter motion). Also your assumptions don't actually really resolve anything and just adds to problems. There are dozens of anomalies and paradoxes out there. Can you give me a list of which it resolves?

OK, so I have found a slightly different set of assumptions. I've shown that mine ARE consistent with logic and all observation, and that they CAN resolve all the anomalies. What else could it do? So the only remaining problem is to persuade people to abandon deeply held assumptions.

The question then is, who will manage this first, mainstream or Pentcho?

Unless of course anyone can find anything apart from belief and assumption to falsify it with. So far not one. I almost wish they could as I could go sailing. Can you?

Best wishes.

Peter

Eckard

It is important to consider a glass mirror. I suggest we can't do worthwhile science by 'passing by' all things we can't explain, or call them 'unimportant'.

Media move wrt other media. Do you suggest waves ignore the media? Of course you wouldn't. So light in one medium is doing a different speed globally to that in another.

Maxwell's equations are, and have only ever been, only valid for each limited local space. They famously will not transform via the LT (a complex matter of 'partial time derivatives'). So the local spaces may then represent inertial frames. You should find plenty of references to this well known limitation which has never been resolved. If not I'll find some (or just see T E Phipps). All resolves with effectively an LT at the TZ.

Best wishes

Peter

Pentcho,

No. Like most current science that's an incomplete understanding, so it is what's been leading us astray.

The new and more complete view may be;

1. All collections of matter forms a 'medium'.

2. All lenses or detectors are collections of matter.

3. The detector medium and approach medium are then in different states of motion.

4. Lambda IN one medium must then vary instantly on contact with the other.

5. Speed in one (c) would then vary to become a different speed in the other (c').

6. The relation c=fL is then consistent, as found, and with a complete new aspect of it's prime importance exposed. c+v is only 'relative', because the PLACES the propagations are in are physically separated and co-moving.

This solution gives the Doppler shift, (delta f & L) and also resolves all the paradoxes introduced by SR, and all anomalies in current interpretations of observation. It cannot be falsified by ANY evidence.

Your option is not indeed proposing any NEW assumptions, but it is relying on the old ones that are now, or will be, discredited. We may say this assumption is equivalent to saying "we can 'see' something without actually USING our eyes!!' Mine accepts that we need to actually USE our eyes to see.

Can you see the big difference?

Peter

Eckard, (et al).

The local domain limits of Maxwell's equations, which I'd assumed were also well known in EE, are discussed in many places and ways, normally as a kinetic 'transform' problem in em. Here they are along with 'extinction' equivalent to a boundary mechanism; (many later papers also discuss).

Equivalence of the Ewald-Oseen extinction theorem as a nonlocal boundary-value problem with Maxwells equations and boundary conditions J. Opt. Soc. Am. 68, 602-610 (1978) http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-68-5-602

In terms of Maxwell's field equations the domain limit is at the 'near field' transition zone. Poorly understood when linked to a Cartesian view, but rationalised as 3D spatial limits and mechanism in my essay (and imminent paper) as 'defining' discrete fields. If any other readers have any other links or insights please do post them.

Many thanks, and best wishes

Peter

Pentcho

No. Wavelength is NOT invariant on transformation. Any 'text book' that suggests that is perpetuating current inadequacies. in fact they do not do so, but only refer to the RELATIVE speed, without properly recognising that they are doing so.

It is a 'shorthand simplification' which hides the mistake all sensible minds in physics are searching for.

L'=L is only 'obvious' to those who can't be bothered to think and analyse carefully enough. Which I agree is most at present.

I have clearly answered your question. You have not yet falsified my proposition. Quoting old theory in an attempt to disprove it's better replacement is invalid. This is what relativists do, so you should not resort to it.

Why do you not accept or try to falsify the clear logic?

I suggest only your beliefs in your old ingrained viewpoint stand in your way.

If you test the more complete model in application I promise you will find it impeccable.

Peter

Predictions confirmed.

The Integral/Ibis (X to Gamma) findings have confirmed the basis of predictions made regarding AGN's, quasar jets, blue shift and polarity etc. both in last years essay, referred in this years, (Inc. end notes) and particularly here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

They are anyway of general interest. A short extract from todays ESA '1st decade' press release;

"astronomers have detected polarised emission in three sources observed with INTEGRAL. The first detection of polarised gamma rays was achieved using data from the brightest source in the high-energy sky: the Crab Nebula, a supernova remnant consisting of a nebula with a pulsar at its core. The polarised component of the nebula's emission, revealed by INTEGRAL, appears to be aligned with the rotation axis of the pulsar, thus demonstrating that gamma rays are emitted in the vicinity of the central source - and possibly by the jets that stem from it."

and perhaps more for Pentcho's interest;

"Given the very large distance of the source, located almost 300 million light-years away from Earth, a team of astronomers has exploited these data to study how the light emitted by the source has propagated across the Universe before reaching us. In fact, if light rays with different polarisation states were to travel at slightly different velocities, as a result of the Lorentz invariance violation, this would leave a distinctive imprint on the data collected by INTEGRAL. Lorentz invariance violation is a symmetry breaking predicted in some of the theories that unify gravity and quantum physics. The study based on INTEGRAL data revealed no such effect: if such a symmetry violation is at play, it must occur at much higher energies than previously thought. The study also set a limit for the fundamental length scale of quantum gravity, which has to be smaller than 10^-48聽m."

link; ESA INTEGRAL Oct 2012.

Peter

Eckard

Maxwell's equations are not invariant under 1st order transformations. This means their domain is limited to a single (thus 'local') frame. In practice you'll find this domain equivalent to the near field, (or relevant to the 'near field' term) which, if you recall, you were kind enough to remind me of.

I agree TZ position is lambda dependent. So is very small for light but large for radio waves. I thought I'd posted this extract from my new joint paper with JSM before;

"Six different radio engineers familiar with antenna science, when asked for the equation for the TZ position, might all feel they know the precise answer. Yet each of their answers could be different. For wavelength L answers may range from L/2pi to 5L/2pi or 50D to 2/L to 2D^2/L where D is the radius of the transmitter (dish, or antenna length). For visible light this (Fraunhofer) transition distance from the surface of a small mass at rest is ~1 micron