Paul,

Yes. You're not shy of repeating your consistent opinion. But it is also seems possible this may wear down a 'groove' from which the view of other aspects can be compromised.

Interesting that your view includes that the Electrodynamics of moving bodies is about "stillness". I agree with your points otherwise, and also with observers being 'at rest' in a local medium, (frame K) but also with most other matter in the universe in motion relatively K'+.

I also agree definitions of old theories are all 'red herrings' to more consistent ones. But if light 'refreshes' by interactions and scattering it can thus be 'changed', precisely as refraction, Yes?

It is the first part your item 3 which I find erroneous. Observation can only be by a lens, which can only be made of matter, and it cannot 'observe' without detection, ergo 'interaction'. All lenses have a refractive index, which is a constant. We cannot ignore the few consistent parts of current theory! There is no referencing problem with this model. All things move. Yes? Yet all lenses find light doing c once detected!!? I simply propose that this is not the massive problem imagined.

I've read your essay and will comment.

Peter

Eckard,

I think others will also find it demanding. I also hope my corrected version is posted.

I agree Cahill is very inconsistent, though found many truths. The big problem is that he assumes SR and contraction a priori to 'massage' all past results to then 'prove' SR. This is not logically consistent so can prove nothing.

In terms of the 'gas mode' I agree entirely that 'medium' and n are relevant in ALL cases, including what we call a vacuum, as sub atomic matter is still there (ions) at significant density, with an assignable state of motion, so modulating c locally by gradual extinction.

I disagree with his P8 comment, and his assumption re 'absolute motion', which is not empirically or logically consistent. Also of course a dense plasma (ion) medium is also n=1. He did get limited support from some of the many 'clutching at straws' but making the same fundamental errors; His work now seems mostly ignored, and correctly I believe.

M. Sato, Physics Essays 23,127 (2010)

R.T.Cahill and K. Kitto Apeiron, vol 10, n°2, April 2003, Progress in Physics 4 (2006) 73-92,

ArXiv:physics/0612201v2, 2 Jan 2007, M. Consoli, ArXiv:Physics/0310053, 13 October 2003.

V.V.Demjanov, Phys.Lett., A 374, 1110-1112 (2010)

Does that fully answer your question yet?

The resolution of the small residual 'ether motion' increasing with altitude is briefly explained on my last page, where the distances are too small for extinction to be 100% completed, and two frames exist, one non rotating, and the atmosphere itself within that rotating, explaining the remaining anomalies.

Is that comprehensible?

I look forward to you essay.

Peter

Georgina.

Thank you kindly. It will indeed take dedication and careful thought, I thank you for that commitment and look forward to your comments. A 'skim over' would miss over 90% of the implications.I did rather pack it in too tight without developing arguments fully, but all parts are essential to an ontological construction unifying QM and SR.

I've read you essay once and find us again very consistent. I look forward to a 2nd reading and discussion. It seems Paul has a different definition of 'subjective' to it's common use in science, which is implicit from his essay, appearing wholly contradictory but obviously not as understood by Paul, so apparent directly conflicting views may not really be so. I will try to tie that down in due course on Pauls string.

Best of luck

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #24

Peter

"Interesting that your view includes that the Electrodynamics of moving bodies is about "stillness".

'In effect, stillness', ie there is no changing rate of momentum in SR, only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion is involved, Einstein said so.

"and also with observers"

SR & GR are not about observation. They are concerned with referencing, because there must be a reference in order to make any judgement, and according to them, matter and light are affected when subjected to a differential in gravitational force. Considerations about the speed of light were what sparked the whole train of thought off. And then speed of light was substituted for distance in an incorrect equation (see my posts 11/7 19.33 for that mistake and 13/7 11.24 for SR).

"But if light 'refreshes' by interactions and scattering it can thus be 'changed', precisely as refraction, Yes?"

If the speed of the physical effect known as light is somehow constantly refreshed, ie always maintained at its start speed, then it will have, physically, a constant speed. It could be a chain reaction for example. Obviously there will be some occasions when some impediment prevents this. This is a possible explanation as to how light travels. The real point being that there is no need to find it constant. Which brings me to the point you disagree with.

Light is just a physically existent phenomenon. The fact that it has acquired a functional role in the sensory system known as sight is irrelevant to its physical existence. In fact it ceases as at the point of reception, just like it does if it hits a brick wall instead. Calibrating the speed of light is the same logical exercise as calibrating the speed of anything else. Observation in this context is not the processing of light in the sensory system, it is the point of reception of light at the eye, ie just like the point of reception at the brick wall. The eye has evolved to make use of, with the rest of the sensory system, the configuration of light, the bricks have not.

"There is no referencing problem with this model"

There is. Because for calibrations to be comparable, the same reference must be used to formulate all those calibrations. The speed (or indeed any attribute) can only be stated wrt something else, and whilst any something else (ie reference) could be selected, once chosen then it, and it only, must be used.

Paul

  • [deleted]

  • Post #25

Peter

"The big problem.."

The big problem is that Einstein defined what SR constituted, but most people are defining it as something else, ie 1905.

I look forward to your attempt to prove how my essay is contradictory, I can take a guess now as to why you think so.

Paul

Avtar,

Thank you. I'm glad the kinetic basis for 'Quantum Relativity' and it's importance is understood by somebody at least, and I greatly look forward to reading your paper, which it sounds may be very consistent.

Peter

Frank,

I agree we hide from realism, such as any link between the many known qualities of the ISM and the likes of the Higgs field. I think very close to 'lossless propagation' but not quite, which may derive a degree of redshift to finally consign increasing expansion to where it belongs.

Yes, I agree entirely about Mars. They've also lost many others and nearly lost Huygens-Cassini last year. the cosmological model is clearly hopelessly wrong, but nobody dares tamper with the assumptions it's built on. The Mars ionosphere is weak compared to Earth's but they ignore it at their peril!

Peter

Thanks Eckard for the typo proofing. (readers see below). Also P8 Para's 2-3 make more sense as;

Assumption 7. 'Ballistic' Stellar Aberration. A hidden implicit sub-assumption is that the barycentric 'medium' does not exist, which confounds theory. If Lodge had known of the IAU Barycentric frame, and of KRR, in 1893 he would not have used his lab to represent the ECI frame, incorrectly disallowing Stellar Aberration from waves. Lodge assumed the 'path' of a 'ray' entering a spinning glass disc is 'dragged' by the glass, so giving aberration in the wrong direction (aberration is ahead of our orbital path). However, the rest frame of the glass, NOT the lab represents an observer on Earth. The optical axis is then reversed as in KRR8 (see Fig.4), not needing ballistics, and with a quantum mechanism deriving the SR postulates.

A connected assumption is of a single Earth centred frame. Kinetic only aberration uses the non-rotating ionospheric ECI frame, but there are TWO! Atmospheric refraction (greatest at longer optical paths near the horizon)13 and an additional kinetic rotational vector explains why local surface light speed is c/n. This 2nd 'frame' resolves the residual errors of laser lunar ranging and stellar aberration.14 Annihilation can't be 100% over short distances, leaving the birefringence found by Raman (1921) and explaining scintillation ('twinkling'), ellipticity and consistently low but non-zero interferometer results.

Peter

Edwin,

I do like the term "significant essay", thank you most humbly. I also agree you've picked out some very salient points.

In pure physics terms I think it important that we recognise the importance of assimilating the two ignored optical effects (page 8) into current theory. In combination they then allow the complete unification of physics in terms of logically explaining the postulates or SR directly with a quantum mechanism. I perhaps didn't labour this point enough as it has been consistently missed. Does it not come across?

And the illogicality and causality issue with the 'ballistic' refraction model, which would imply 'ripping' a section out of the causal wave plane and 'hinging' it so some light has to stop and other parts do more than c to 'catch up.' (Fig 3). Do the mega implications of that not emerge clearly?

I've just found my 'mutual exclusivity' axiom echoes Boscovich's 'axiom of Impenetrability', which is nice.

I was also pleased to find high consistency with your again excellent, essay, though yours is as densely packed as mine and I need a further read to properly extract all it's meaning.

Best of luck.

Peter

Vijay,

Thanks, increased density of dielectrics certainly occurs closer to massive bodies, and reduces em wave speed, but the main resolution of the anomalies and paradoxes emerges from the kinetic element. This has been 'hiding' behind Fresnel's n and poor ontological thought processes.

None the less It seems our theses are consistent and I look forward to reading yours.

Peter

Vladimir,

Thank you. Nothing indeed does not exist. I look forward to your further comments after your studies. I can probably provide more links if needed.

Yes, both GRIN lenses and Phase Array radar (etc.) systems are highly analogous with my 'rotation' and Figs (I assume you meant 3B and 4.). I didn't have room to include a reference, but for anyone interested an easy intro is here; http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/an14.en.html

This blows the whole assumptive basis of 'light Rays', 'light paths' and ray vectors' out of the water as 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! Yet most physicists will say 'yes of course we know how it works!!'

I think your essay may be the perfect 'previous chapter' to mine, and I'm impressed you resisted the temptation to cram your beautiful overview with too much, which I fear I have.

Best of luck

Peter

Joe

I hope the second meaning of the title also emerged. I also tried to make the last line as comprehensible as the first so I hope you got it? (See Frank's comments above). I'm not sure I ever understood any of Seinfeld so you are at an intellectual advantage.

I agree entirely about "one REAL unit of everything" particularly time. Paul seemed to miss the below too, so I'll elucidate, by analogy;

You and 2 mates synchronise 3 clocks, one takes one a long way away. Each is ticking at the same REAL time, so let's say they flash once a second. Now the distant one approaches you at half light speed. Your mate with it checks his watch and it is definitely running at the same unchanged speed, but Lo! The flashes of light that you observe as the clock approaches you are LESS than one second apart! What foul trickery is this? it is not. You are not seeing REAL time, because you cannot comply with the rules of 'Proper Time' (to do so you need to be 'moving' at the same speed as the clock).

Your other mate now flies off in the other direction at half c. His clock still emits the flashes at REAL 1 second intervals, yet, aghast! they are now received by you at much longer intervals. Is time now 'dilated'!!??

Of course not. You are again not seeing REAL time because the position of the emitter changes between emissions and light has a finite propagation speed irrespective of the emitter. i.e. I am introducing 'APPARENT' time, in ALL CASES except where the observer is at rest with the emitter. Otherwise the flash sequence is 'Doppler shifted'. In reality there is only ever ONE absolute time! We can simply find it for any clock moving at v relative to us, the observer, by adding or subtracting v. Your kinetic reference is then always your own 'rest' state of inertial motion K.

Is that not far more simple and comprehensible than Seinfeld and the LT?

Peter

James

I'm humbled by your appreciation. I see science and humanities as simply aspects of one nature with a false division. I'm also making the point (Edwin spotted) that philosophy and science are both worse off for complete divorce.

But the main thrust is the content and evidence. I hope you do labour a little to rationalise the over dense points and massive implications. I've rewritten the penultimate page "Assumption 7; Aberration' paragraphs (3rd post down at the top here) to hopefully make more sense. (I'd 'over pruned' it to meet the limit!).

I recall I liked your effort last year and will try to read this years soon.

best wishes

Peter

Wilhelmus.

I was called back to Sirius B9 I'm afraid to explain why man's making such poor progress deciphering nature. Nearly had to give up, but luckily your post was just in time. There is hope for us! Well done. (Also moved house, worked and went sailing).

I agree about the ~Planck length, otherwise we have infinite regression of frames, but I do not guess what we have no evidence of. I don't consider that science. I will just define evidenced parameters. As you know from Architects training ultimate free thinking doesn't mean just inconsitent speculation.

Do comment on my evidenced proposition that causality is breached by mainstream assumption about refraction, exposed when considering a plane wavefront. The full ontological construction of Relativity derived direct from a quantum mechanism is almost complete now, but can't all be jammed into a short essay. Unfortunately beliefs and assumptions will probably keep it hidden from most in any case.

I wish you luck with your essay and look forward to reading it.

Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #35

    Hi Peter,

    :) always in the rational road. You know, it is our only one solution after all. The determinism is a parameter so important to have these rational datas.The sciences are exact and precise.The good universities teach the foundamentals. The rest is vain !

    The medecines must be rational, like in the chemistry or the biology or the physics or the maths....

    In fact , this universal 3D objectivity is essential for all correct axiomatizations of these foundamental laws.

    If not, we have pseudo sciences. Can we teach false sciences ? no of course , fortunaly for our technologies and models furthermore.

    I wish you all the best in this contest Peter.

    Regards

    Paul.

    "..the same reference must be used to formulate all those calibrations". Yes, I am only too aware you take the pre Galilean view of this, which is of course also pre Einsteinian. The central tenet of the Galilean revolution was intellectual holism. Meaning that there were many equivalent reference frames (matter with states of motion and non-zero dimensions) and they were all equivalent. i.e. each one is a 'rest frame' for the purposes of the measurement of light speed.

    Einstein (and I know you now feel yourself a lone expert but remember others have studied his work and thoughts for many decades and not quite all have it wrong), set out to explain the very many confounding astronomical and interferometry findings he set out as postulates. He thus went a step further in using all kinetic states as representing rest frames. Each rest frame IS a local reference for phenomena travelling within that frame, i.e.= c. This explains observation. Your single reference point seems poorly considered as it infers some relevant single 'absolute' frame, which is what we escaped from courtesy of Gallileo. I'm not sure you really wish to revert, but you should understand that this is the inevitable simple consequence of your assertion of a single reference. 'Kinetic nesting' is an important concept to grasp, equivalent to Einstions moving spaces s within S. (1953). Investigating the PDL I discuss would help greatly.

    I do agree with your improved explanation of 'stillness' above, by which you really meant lack of acceleration (change' of kinetic state) which of course you must consider that we did all well know. The 'stillness' as you call it is always the consistent reference point. Your comment only indicates you have not comprehended the complex relationships explored in my essay and should probably read it more slowly (that doesn't go for you alone of course so please don't take offence). Do revert when you have.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Steve.

    Many thanks. I value your rationalist view, and am very impressed that in discussing my essay about rotating spherical entities and nested spaces moving within spaces, that you did not use the word 'sphere' once!

    Yet I disagree that even the best universities are just teaching the rational. It is becoming clearer to me that they are also indoctrinating young physicists to be unable to think conceptually or accept challenges to assumptions they are taught.

    The last winner of the Nobel in Chemistry was called a pseudo scientist when he lost his job and home 30 years ago for proposing what he has just at last won the Nobel for discovering. The USChem Soc President was challenged and said "that's how science is done." He was right. And it should not be!

    I hope you liked the sonnet, but the science is important.

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #38

    Peter,

    You are welcome. You are impressed ? you have not still all seen you know.It is the begining of the spherical revolution you know Peter.

    That said , I agree about the universities.Some universities are good, others no.It is always the same problems in fact, the vanity and the monney Peter.Or perhaps even the frustration of the searcher.

    But fortunally the rational roads are and shall be always our best choices.

    The system is corrupted and sick Peter, it is not new.But fortunally it exists real universalists, and rationalists and foundamentalists in the high spheres !!!

    The well wins always Peter ! the monney is just an error you know .

    spherically yours :)

    Peter

    "Yes, I am only too aware you take the pre Galilean view of this"

    My view, as you term it, is the definition of referencing. It has nothing to do with pre-Einstein, indeed, he stuck relentlessly to this principle. This is demonstrable in his various definitions of the principle which become more and more generic. For example, here is the last one in SR & GR:

    "By application of arbitrary substitutions of the Gauss variables x1, x2, x3, x4, the equations must pass over into equations of the same form; for every transformation (not only the Lorentz transformation) corresponds to the transition of one Gauss co-ordinate system into another". (Einstein 1916 SR & GR section 28)

    Or:

    "That in general, Laws of Nature are expressed by means of equations which are valid for all co-ordinate systems, that is, which are covariant for all possible transformations". (Einstein, Foundation of GR, 1916, section 3)

    The point is that to make any judgement, there must be a reference. That reference can be anything. But once selected, it must be consistently used, otherwise the judgements are not comparable. That is what referencing is.

    His point was (or at least Lorentz's point was) that under certain circumstances, matter and light were affected (dimension altered and light no longer travelled in straight lines at a constant speed). And if this was so, then one needed to take account of it when making judgements (ie referencing). The cause of this dimensional alteration also caused a change in momentum. So something (which includes light) that was not moving in a uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion would be exhibiting the effects. In other words, changing momentum was an indicator that this newly discovered, and really small effect, was occurring.

    "Each rest frame IS a local reference for phenomena travelling within that frame"

    Yes, it is, that is precisely what I am saying. Because it is then not a reference for the 'next frame'. To include 'the next frame' in your comparison, you must maintain the reference first selected, not keep 'switching references'. Or establish a new reference from which both the first and the next can be referenced against a consistent reference. Furthermore, the concept of 'rest' is irrelevant. The only problem with 'not-at rest' is that, according to them, dimension alteration is occurring. So having recognised that, calibrations can still be effected, they just become more difficult.

    "This explains observation"

    No it does not. Observation (or indeed any form of sensing) is irrelevant. Physical existence is not affected by sensing. Light is a physically existent phenomenon. It travels. Sometimes it hits a physically existent phenomenon known as eye, most times it does not. The physical circumstances are the same, whether in its travel it hits an eye or a brick wall. It is just that eyes are the front end of a sensory system that can utilise the light, bricks cannot.

    "your improved explanation of 'stillness' above"

    It was not an improved explanation, I pointed out to you that I used the words "in effect". In the context of maintaining the character count, which I singularly blew by about a page, though I only had 9 pages, a degree of cryptic writing is bound to occur throughout. And the 'stillness' is not inherently the reference point. Physically there is no form of reference that is somehow detached from physical reality, and can therefore be used as some omnipotent reference.

    Paul

    Paul

    What in your mind is a transformation? In the STR it is a transformation between inertial reference frames. That means 'different' inertial frames. That was the whole point of the Galilean revolution.

    There are two aspects here which are indeed confusing. You cannot validly use one reference frame to compare 'moving phenomena' in your own frame then accelerated into another, and expect not to find different characteristics.

    By the same logic you cannot record the vector of a moving object in your own frame, then accelerate into another frame, look back at them and expect to find the same vector.

    I agree that if you wish to compare the apparent CHANGE resulting from such frame transitions then you indeed need just one reference point. You will not however find the laws of physics or c apply to phenomena in a different frame! This is indeed still confusing to mainstream science,(i.e. Google 'non-linear optics' and Fraunhofer radiation)

    This proper 'frame' conception was the fundamental advancement of Galilean relativity on which the STR is based. Perhaps you did not study that massive conceptual change before studying the STR? But it is good to come at it afresh because it's implications and reality are poorly understood and many effects not assimilated into theory (Just read p6 of USNO Circular 179). This is what my paper addresses and rationalises though the concepts are kinetically complex.

    To try in a nutshell; The speed of a pulse of light within a bus is a REAL speed wrt the bus. The pulse speed wrt you in a car passing by (another frame) is only an 'apparent' speed. The two are not the same in value or category.

    And Einstein did well know his 1905 conception was flawed, often saying as much, so we must remember that just quoting that is only ever a part of his own part of the whole story, not quite in the category of the 10 commandments!

    Peter