Tom,

I agree. That's precisely what we assume SR means, which I'm suggesting is not the only possible interpretation. The alternative recognises Einstein's 1952 analysis, and he and Minkowski's 'Proper Time' and the converse; co-ordinate time and undetectable ('imaginary') c+v (1908).

Consider carefully what you just wrote; "there is no objective third observer." I agree. There'can't be in current understanding. And it's not just that such an observer would 'see' different speeds, he cannot actually exist, as no possible frame exists for him to occupy! This is what Lorentz said he could not accept 'without reservation' in 1913. It means that if we, on Earth, observe light or objects approaching from each side of us at d/t = 0.6c then we must cease to exist!! I've now thrown a ring round that slippery soap bar so we can't keep chasing it away by slipping back to 'appearances' when faced with it.

But now consider the option. We don't remove the entire 3rd frame, we just remove it's privileged status, which means it's 'absolute' character. We treat everything as a 'medium', as diffuse as we like (which my essay showed space is anyway) bt allow media to move wrt each other, which again we already know they do anyway!! Now we recover Einstein's postulates WITHOUT any paradoxes, but WITH an underlying quantum mechanism (Raman atomic scattering) to explain them.

It's the tiniest adjustment to a hidden assumptions of SR, and one which Einstein knew and explained conceptually and was desperately trying to track down at the quantum level.

Even better. The structure of inertial systems and space-time gains Local Reality, and the precise hierarchical structure of Truth Functional Logic TFL;

Consider multiple 3D n body inertial systems; A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc. (each equivalent to a 'proposition'). They are each of S spatial extent but bounded, and may be within or without each other. (Einstein's 1952; "space s in motion within space S"). Any two in the same state of motion become one.

Considered carefully, we find that each can only have ONE immediate larger neighbour. Each may have many different or compound spaces within it, but each of those still only has ONE adjoining 'background' frame. So if we 'nest' the spaces spatially up from A to G, The 'state of motion' of A is only relevant wrt to B, (A-B) which is only relevant to (A-B)-C, and on ad infinitum. B may leave the limits of C and move through D, but still only has that single relative motion B-D, and the compound proposition B/D only has a 'speed' wrt E so (B-D)-E.

This is the precise structure of propositions in TFL. Each proposition can only be logically resolved wrt it's immediate neighbour as a compound proposition, and then that can only be resolved wrt it's own immediate neighbour. Relative velocities are ALL limited to c. But that only applies to REAL velocities, in the local background, which are then 'Proper Speeds' or 'propagation' velocities.

Apparent velocities 'two frames removed' cannot be detected, only worked out trogonometrically as they are only apparent, and directly equivalent to 'co-ordinate time'. The light from any scattering evidence propagates at c, and has to cross the frame boundaries (so Doppler shifting) and arrive at the detector at c in it's local frame. So absolutely NOTHING breaches propagation speed c anywhere. The ontological construct treats each system is a discrete field (thus 'DFM')

Yet, we can now fire a bullet on Earth and have no problem reconciling that it's apparent velocity wrt some other planet at z=2, or a blob of plasma from a quasar at z-3, may be around 6c, which is exactly what we find in astronomy. (not logically resolved using current interpretation).

You rightly asked what proof. I pointed out it only had 3 proofs (though each seemingly irrefutable); Maths, Logical consistency and all available empirical evidence. As it agrees with most of SR and GR, then all the evidence for SR and GR is also consistent with this interpretation. All the stuff under the carpet is also now consistent, and I've pointed out a long string of unique predictions.

But unfortunately it doesn't seem to meet one other apparent requirement for an advancement of understanding; It isn't precisely the same as the previous understanding. I'm now not sure that can be overcome. If you can see how, or see any other remaining falsification with it do please identify it.

Many thanks

Peter

James,

I'd certainly agree; "refuting the universal constant speed of light in a vacuum has to be done correctly". It's clear Pentcho has fallen well short, but are you trying to doing so too? Do you believe that light between particles in atmospheres moves at c+v under gravity wrt the gravitating body?

I'm certainly don't propose either myself, though I have, I think, shown that a 'perfect vacuum' does not exist in macro terms. If you thought I was disputing em fluctuation propagation speed at max c then I understand the confusion, but thanks for your viewpoint.

Propagation is the key word here, 'Proper' not not 'apparent' speed. Some forget there is both, and neglect that apparent c+ is not real c+, for any photon or wave anywhere!

In models of discrete inertial systems (relativity and DFM) it is recognised that the systems can move wrt each other. I simply apply the logic of saying this means Maxwell and Einstein were correct, in postulating CSL in each frame. The only error is then assuming that the frames were somehow not real. The quantum mechanism of scattering at c makes them real and provides the boundaries.

I've not heard anybody suggest any particles of any systems scatter at anything other than c wrt their own state of motion, so am a little at a loss to understand the lack of understanding of the simple logic. Can you explain?

Perhaps see the long reply to Tom at the bottom here which I've just posted.

Best wishes

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #384

Peter Jackson,

"I've not heard anybody suggest any particles of any systems scatter at anything other than c wrt their own state of motion, so am a little at a loss to understand the lack of understanding of the simple logic. Can you explain?"

I do not contradict Maxwell. The speed of light locally is determined by the local electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability. I don't believe I have seen you address the derivation of either of these from your model.

I don't have a lack of understanding of simple logic. Part of the problem of communication has been that you have deflected some inquiries into unhelpful answers.

While waiting for my response to your answers to my questions that laid in wait: I understand your position to be that the light arrives to be absorbed at a different speed from which it is emitted. I think I asked about this and received conformation from you quite some time ago.

If this is correct then here is another question to be added to previous ones: Please discuss the Compton effect both close encounters and increasingly remote encounters. If you have done your mathematics concerning this effect please share that also.

My interest is in uncovering natural truth. I don't believe that 'theoretical' physics represents natural truth. However, its adoption of a mathematical framework is not dispensible. I am interested in your mathematical derivations involving the properties that you speak about. What are your fundamentals?

Thank you.

James Putnam

James,

I assume c, as modified by n, as SR and Maxwell. The revolutionary part is that c is defined as wrt the state of motion of the particles which give n. Other theories simply don't give it a datum due to the CSL paradox. No maths are then needed except to show that CSL is not a paradox because background 'states of motion' are 'local' just like the particles which define them. I give the maths in the essay and end notes. Let me know if you think some is missing. I also don't intentionally 'defelect' things, but perhaps you expect answers to reflect what's in your brain not mine, which is impossible. Do identify anything.

Ref the simple logic of the above local c/n, I referred to 'anybody' not you James, and hoped you may help explain as I'm at a loss. Tom Miles post above (3.Oct) agreed the fundamentals, and noted my findings ref the Compton effect, which relate to extinction rates and birefringence. The effect is at the heart of the model, but is referred more precisely as Raman scattering. It seems you simply didn't make the link, or perhaps just skimmed over that bit. It is also analogous to 'Stokes/Anti Stokes' up & down shifted scattering. Which, when the (n-body particle) inertial system is in motion, is the Doppler shift effect.

Multi-refringence is evident when the old signal has not yet been extinguished, both due to harmonics and low particle density.

i.e. In space, where density relative to glass may be ~10^-15 it would take around 10^-15 as long to interact with every bit of the wavefront. As it happens, space is much larger than needed. The visual effects are precisely the 'anomalous' ones termed 'gravitational lensing', 'surfaces last scattered' and 'curved space time'. Precise maths will depend on particle densities, which we don't know, so we can only use the data from the bits we do know about, i.e. the Earths Bow shock, with the result as precisely shown on the graph in Rich Kingsley Nixey's essay (Fig 2). I also identify that at high Transition Zone ion densities 'Optical Breakdown' is reached at some 10^21/cm^-3, implying 100% transition at somewhat lower densities.

In terms of 'acceleration.' Take the sun's approx velocity through our galactic arm (not the 240kps arm speed) and add allowances for birefringence (only guesstimatable) the frame transition effect on 'refractive index' somewhere around the heliopause (say 80 AU's) should be in the order of some 1.0006, or say twice that of air. This is well within the range implied by the Pioneer/ Voyager anomaly of 8.74 x 10^-8 cm/s^2 at

Tom,

Thanks. I agree emission at local c for all particles, so inertial systems. In that case there is no appropriate single word for the speed increase, and the word 'acceleration' may be misunderstood. Language lags behind and is a drag on understanding of nature. In last years notes I suggested a few new words. Guess how many caught on!

The term 'emission theory' is also inadequate, as the DFM is not such it terms of classical d/t, but is indeed at the quantum scale. This very fact and underlying mechanism can unify QM and Relativity by deriving the SR postulates and curved space-time. But I often feel as if mankind has been hypnotised not to recognise the importance of that, and indeed to look away whenever the answer appears!

Your 'belief' about coupling events is certainly cutting edge mainstream Raman scattering theory so should not be challengeable evidentially. However, you are forgetting the primary source of n and Doppler shift which is coupling harmonics. ( i.e. n is valid even with no co-motion) That is what 'hides' the kinetic effect.

Sorry I didn't notice your post earlier.

Best wishes

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #387

Peter Jackson,

"I also don't intentionally 'defelect' things, but perhaps you expect answers to reflect what's in your brain not mine, which is impossible. Do identify anything."

I think you do. Look back at the beginning of this thread.

James A Putnam replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 15:39 GMT Dear Peter,

You said to Daniel:

"Now imagine each particle of matter as the driver of a car. The car is the limit of the frame. It forms the physical boundary. It contracts when it changes frame to that of a truck coming the other way, and light entering it hits the screen and changes speed, to d c wrt the car."

This description causes me to ask again for you to distinguish between: Local changes of the speed of light and its effect upon photons, and: That which happens physically to objects such as cars and drivers. My current understanding of your position is that cars and drivers do not themselves physically suffer relativity effects due to relative velocities. I will also ask about clocks. If a clock is moving close to and horizontally to the surface of the Earth will it slow down its time keeping function? One more question, If a common macroscopic clock is moved from a stable high position above the Earth to a stable position on the Earth will it have changed size and rate of its time keeping function due to General Relativity type effects?

I am asking only about the immediate local physical effects on the objects themselves and not about what happens to photons after having left the objects or about photons that may be arriving to the objects.

James

"Anonymous replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 22:19 GMT James

"You ask what happens physically to cars and drivers on rapid acceleration (frame change). I confirm I derive a Doppler shift, which is a physical length contraction, or dilation, if the body is compressible. So the bodies DO "suffer" if they themselves accelerate. It is purely an unfamiliar way of re-appraising the very familiar. The experimental evidence fills many a scrap yard and...

view entire post

!). ..."

James A Putnam replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 22:26 GMT Peter,

"You ask what happens physically to cars and drivers on rapid acceleration (frame change). I confirm I derive a Doppler shift, which is a physical length contraction, or dilation, if the body is compressible. So the bodies DO "suffer" if they themselves accelerate."

No I am not asking about conditions resulting from rapid accleration or even any acceleration. I am asking only about conditions involving constant velocity of a clock in one cse and a stationary object in the other case.

James

In your response you talk about not care and not drivers. You talk about photons. Look if it is a problem for you to be challenged just say so. By the way, the Compton effect is not about Raman Scattering. Now, if I am incorrect, I would appreciate a correct correction. Thank you.

James Putnam

James,

"This description causes me to ask again for you to distinguish between: Local changes of the speed of light and its effect upon photons, and: That which happens physically to objects such as cars and drivers. My current understanding of your position is that cars and drivers do not themselves physically suffer relativity effects due to relative velocities."

That asked me to; 'distinguish between...' which is why I did so, not to 'exclude' either one. You also said; 'local changes of the speed of light... and 'that which happens to cars and drivers.' Which I reasonably assumed also meant the 'local changes of the speed.' Change of speed = "acceleration"!! What you wrote is not what, it seems, you meant to ask. But I'll certainly assume what you meant and answer that too.

First you must realise you must be prepared to re-look at 'familiar' things in a different way (Bragg). On finding and explaining new links between A and B I'm always being told; "A has nothing to do with B." It's bemusing, as the 'search for hidden connections' is the heart of physics! i.e. I agree scant links have been identified between the Compton effect and up/down shifting from Raman surface scattering. It's quite complex, but in a nutshell; Consider the 'object' as at the surface of a new co-moving medium, or a 'refractive plane'. The 'Compton effect' then makes a darn good imitation of refraction, including 'kinetic reverse refraction' because the effect (delta E) can be directly derived from the re-emission angle of the photon. If you read Raman's 1923 (1930 Nobel Prize) paper carefully they are different views of the same thing, and modulated by relative Kinetics as well as harmonic resonance, which then helps explain a few other 'anomalous' effects such as KRR, as explained in the essay.

So. We have a driver and car. Whatever speed they think they are doing they are in fact 'at rest' if not accelerating. This is as SR. i.e. If we spin the Earth at the precise speed of the car, and the car accelerates to the same speed as the Earth's surface, you can better see is at rest. But ALL vehicles are at rest in ALL cases if not accelerating. They are also all the same size as when they started if 'rigid bodies'. We now have two cases to consider, 1. A frame transition by the car, 2. The same transition by the light FROM the car.

Have in mind that a 'frame' is purely a 'state of motion' of any matter. In case 1, The car undergoes forces of contraction or dilation on frame transition, (acceleration), which may be violent if sudden, i.e. to the frame of a truck, emitting noise and not recovering in length. The driver will also contract, but may recover. But with NO acceleration there is NO real effect at all.

2. Light waves (in photons if you wish) from the man are emitted at c, propagate at c wrt the car when IN the car (c/n at the window), then leave the car towards a truck coming the other way, whereon they Doppler shift (compress) on entering the frame of the outside air. On interacting with the trucks screen (think of it as a detector lens) they are compressed again (blue shifted on absorption and scattering) and the truck driver sees a rather bluer car when the waves interact with his lenses. It is the waves ('photons') that have length contracted, as it is only they which have changed propagation frames.

Now I hope that answers your question. You should find it entirely intuitive, and surprisingly also derive the postulates of SR (local c) via a quantum mechanism (=unification). But if you still don't understand any part do just keep on asking. I won't 'deflect' anything, but do ask carefully, and if your understanding remains different it may certainly 'look like' deflection.

best wishes

Peter

Peter Jackson,

"That asked me to; 'distinguish between...' which is why I did so, not to 'exclude' either one. You also said; 'local changes of the speed of light... and 'that which happens to cars and drivers.' Which I reasonably assumed also meant the 'local changes of the speed.' Change of speed = "acceleration"!! What you wrote is not what, it seems, you meant to ask. But I'll certainly assume what you meant and answer that too."

I asked exactly what I wanted to know:

You said to Daniel:

"["Now imagine each particle of matter as the driver of a car. The car is the limit of the frame. It forms the physical boundary. It contracts when it changes frame to that of a truck coming the other way, and light entering it hits the screen and changes speed, to d c wrt the car."

Me: This description causes me to ask again for you to distinguish between: Local changes of the speed of light and its effect upon photons, and: That which happens physically to objects such as cars and drivers. My current understanding of your position is that cars and drivers do not themselves physically suffer relativity effects due to relative velocities. I will also ask about clocks. If a clock is moving close to and horizontally to the surface of the Earth will it slow down its time keeping function? One more question, If a common macroscopic clock is moved from a stable high position above the Earth to a stable position on the Earth will it have changed size and rate of its time keeping function due to General Relativity type effects?

I am asking only about the immediate local physical effects on the objects themselves and not about what happens to photons after having left the objects or about photons that may be arriving to the objects.]"

Your acceleration interpretation had no relevance to my question. It led to unimportant points about whether rigid or unrigid bodies suffered deformation due to rapid acceleration.Nothing to do with what I asked.

Scrap the rest of your message. I was looking for direct answers. A direct answer for the Compton effect would have needed only your mathematical calculation of the encounter for a few different distances. Your calculation would have told me more than your words about the level of importance of your explanation.

James Putnam

James,

"I am asking only about the immediate local physical effects on the objects themselves." And I answered that; NONE! - because each one of them is equivalently 'at rest' when not accelerating. I'm not sure what more you want?

I suspect you just didn't recognise the answer, because it does need a 'new way of thinking' (as Einstein predicted, and as Bragg). Perhaps approach it this way;

Gravity aside there are only two fundamental states of motion of bodies; 'REST' and 'ACCELERATION'. You want to consider 'rest'. OK; There is no length contraction, no nothing! BUT; a non rigid body or system having accelerated FROM one inertial rest frame INTO another will NOT be in the same state as it was in the previous rest frame. Even a time signal will have compressed or dilated. And it then STAYS that way all the time it's at rest in it's frame of propagation.

For the Compton effect there simply IS NO ENCOUNTER without an acceleration, so no calculation!

Perhaps look at it this way; If the 'target' is in the same state of motion as the approaching particle, then the particle is NOT APPROACHING IT. So if you're not interested in acceleration, you're not interested in interactions involving different relative velocities, so there is no 'effect'.

Now that is as direct and complete as it's possible to get, but I don't doubt it may be unfamiliar to you. I'm sorry, there's really nothing I can do about that. Ask any question you wish and you'll get a straight answer. It's all falsifiable and the simple maths is in the essay. Lambda (length) and frequency (time/rate) change on transformation, not the 'wave function' itself, or local c.

I hope that's helped, but do direct me to anything you think that formalism doesn't cover and I'll try to describe how it does so.

best wishes

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #391

Pter Jackson,

""I am asking only about the immediate local physical effects on the objects themselves." And I answered that; NONE! - because each one of them is equivalently 'at rest' when not accelerating. I'm not sure what more you want?"

I wanted direct answers to simple questions. Either yes or no. You say NONE and you are wrong. The examples I gave and the followup message that attempted even more strongly to get those straight answers:

"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"

have nothing to do with acceleration. Any and all velocities involved are constants and relative.

I suspect you just didn't recognise the answer, because it does need a 'new way of thinking' (as Einstein predicted, and as Bragg). Perhaps approach it this way;

"Gravity aside there are only two fundamental states of motion of bodies; 'REST' and 'ACCELERATION'. You want to consider 'rest'. OK; There is no length contraction, no nothing! BUT; a non rigid body or system having accelerated FROM one inertial rest frame INTO another will NOT be in the same state as it was in the previous rest frame. Even a time signal will have compressed or dilated. And it then STAYS that way all the time it's at rest in it's frame of propagation."

There is no rest state. There is no evidence for a rest state. There is relative velocity and there is change of velocity.

"or the Compton effect there simply IS NO ENCOUNTER without an acceleration, so no calculation!"

Yes there is an encounter. And, that encounter can be modeled mathematically.

"Perhaps look at it this way; If the 'target' is in the same state of motion as the approaching particle, then the particle is NOT APPROACHING IT. So if you're not interested in acceleration, you're not interested in interactions involving different relative velocities, so there is no 'effect'."

There are background properties and relative velocities within them. Different velocities do give different observed and real results.

James Putnam

  • [deleted]

  • Post #392

I my previous message the following comment should have been in quotes. It is Peter Jackson's comment:

"I suspect you just didn't recognise the answer, because it does need a 'new way of thinking' (as Einstein predicted, and as Bragg). Perhaps approach it this way;"

My own opinion about this kind of comment is that in both cases it is not a call to correctness. It is a call to feel obligated to agree with the author's viewpoint. Peter can speak to others for himself. Einstein is no longer with us, but, his call for a new way of thinking had to do with convincing others that he was correct. He was not correct. Relativity theory is clearly wrong. It is wrong because if rests upon unverifiable properties. Those properties are represented in spacetime. Neither space nor time are available for us to experiment upon. We cannot establish properties for either one. The theorists, including Einstein, attach their imaginative ideas to the equations of physics and do not sometimes wait for others to judge them for themselves. The calls for a 'new way of thinking' so long as that new way adheres to the theorists' view is best ignored.

James Putnam

  • [deleted]

  • Post #393

Tom, Peter, and any interested readers,

Regarding my previous message: Spacetime is an unfalsifiable theoretical idea. This statement and some of my previous statements, like about cause or intelligence in discussions with Tom, might be more palitable if I make clear that all empirical evidence, in other words, everything upon which physics basis itself upon, consists of patterns in changes of velocity of matter. 'Matter' is a catch-all word for objects who's motion is observed. This very last sentence may be challenged by experts or very knowledgeable others such as Tom. If it is challengeable, I will appreciate a non-theoretically based challenge that clarifies 'matter'.

James Putnam

James,

I clarified the non accelerative DFM case here Nov 7;

"No, they don't change. Consider why; I'm at rest in space with one clock. A planet comes past on it's orbital path and only just misses us. An identical clock on it's surface passes by. Which one is 'moving'?"... "all inertial frames are equivalent"

"If the clock is a rigid body it will not contract (but as nothing is perfectly rigid at 3rd order it may!). If it's one of those fancy new jello and gas clocks, then it will contract (when at rest nearer Earth). Take it back up to the space station airlock, and it will expand! But, just like a gas being heated, it's just the density, or space between the particles that changes (Classical mechanics)."

Indeed you didn't offer any refutation of the clear logic, or answered the question; 'which one is moving'? You say "you are wrong", but offer no falsification of my very significant evidence and logic (see also the recent links posted) or offer any verification of your own belief. (In fact James you should of course correctly say "I disagree," or "that is inconsistent with...", or you're not doing science but beliefs!).

When we don't offer any datum we're left thinking anthropocentrically. Speed is only a relative concept. And I agree Einstein's 'solution' was no solution, but that does not make him a fool. You badly misjudge his comment about 'new ways to think', It had nothing to do with his work, in fact quite the reverse. The proper quote is: "We won't solve our problems using the same kind of thinking we used to create them." And I agree. An excellent proof is here; http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf

Rejecting even the idea that a different approach is possible is tantamount to wearing blinkers. I promise you that reading that paper is an eye opener.

Also; Compton. Please explain, if spatially separated and doing the same speed (at rest wrt each other) how can there be an encounter?

Where you entirely agree with the DFM is your last line; "There are background properties and relative velocities within them. Different velocities do give different observed and real results."

But you have not yet chased down all the implications of that statement. There can be no one single ('absolute') background frame. i.e. The planet you are using as a datum is NOT the only datum in the universe, it is itself moving wrt a background. And that background is moving wrt a background. Precisely as the 'nested' structure of Truth Propositional Logic. It is that ontology that the 'new' holistic way of thinking helps to rationalise.

Your last message; I suggest the 'idea' or word 'spacetime' can't be wrong, but what is wrong is the assumption that something that cannot exist in the theory itself (the 'ether' frame) can then be 'curved'! The evidence is in the 'chasm' between SR and QM, which is why I have shown the quantized underlying process can produce the effects we call curved 'spacetime'. You may think that a bit semantic, and may be right, but that would be to miss this main point.

Finally; You again agree with the DFM to the extent that matter is motion, but for some reason not explained refer to 'changes' of velocity (acceleration). If spin (rotational or otherwise) is acceleration then I agree. Otherwise not. But particle physics does have an answer to your question (quite universally accepted I gather); It was explained to me very recently by a Fermilab physicist in these word;

"E = mc^2 is only correct for an object at rest (meaning in the center of momentum frame). A proton at rest counts, even though the constituents move. For a stationary proton, the center of momentum is unmoving."

This is in fact fully consistent with the DFM, where each particle is an 'inertial system', but the DFM also goes on the recognise that a local background 'n body system' or even 'ether' frame is still also required to complete the logical construction.

I hope that helps.

peter

Tom,

Do you have a view on the 'serious blow to SUSY' from CERN. I note not all are 'loosing sleep over it'.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100

I hope you'll respond to the post above.

I'd also point out the surprising and very authoritative find that expansion has NOT been accelerating for most of the life of the universe, until z~0.8!; A&A 2012;

The data analysis has to rely on a significant 'dark' element, which is consistent with both the Sandage 2006 paper, (which showed the need for a kinetic/time delay/'special agent', such as vacuum fluctuations or plasma) and thus with the DFM, which removes any bar to diffuse n-body inertial systems in relative motion.

I suggest Bell is simply shattered to unequal smithereens!

Peter

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the news. Actually, I never had a lot of confidence in the purported link between the standard model and supersymmetry, as suggested in a piece I wrote in 2008 , which also predicts the acceleration parameter you mention, at 0.86, due to a cosmic binding energy.

More will have to wait for later.

Tom

Tom,

I'd think predicting accelerated expansion only commenced at z=0.8 was almost worth a Nobel prize! (even perhaps the one just awarded!). Your long paper lost me after just a few pages, and I confess my scanning of the rest didn't find it, so perhaps you can direct me.

What's interesting is that the n-body system model also predicts the same data and basic findings, including Sandage, but derives the inverse of the curve produced by the latest interpretation, rapid expansion but slowing since before z=1.

Quasar spectra are consistent with high dispersion, which is inconsistent with current theory, and ion dispersion also resolves the Sandage question. It only then takes a tiny absorption factor (from the ions we know are out there already) to derive observed redshift and explain the CMBR 'frames last scattered' which the latest A&A paper couldn't resolve so simply omitted! I'm sure you'll disagree with that bit if you predicted the A&A interpretation. But I suggest mine is no more shocking than this;

I'm reliably informed from particle physic that E=mc^2 isn't the right equation, and that there are two correct ones; E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2聽and E = gamma m c^2. The logic is clear (see also my 5th Oct string post to James above) and clears up the discrepancy of rest and inertial mass m = E/c^2, if at some barely hidden cost to a fundamental assumption of SR. Interesting?

Do pass me the committee address for your nomination letter!

Best wishes

Peter

PS I also hope for your views on my original post.

Sorry, Peter, I made the case for the acceleration parameter 0.86c more explicit in my essay on time (FQXi, "Time Counts"). Too many gaps for a prize, I think, and theorists rarely win them anyway. If one is willing to accept the hypothesis of a cosmic binding energy, however, the numbers do add up.

E^2 = mc^4 (pc)^2 is the unreduced version of E = mc^2. It implies, though, that a relativistic particle of positive energy and zero momentum possesses negative mass. (This is covered in my "time barrier" paper, 2.12 et seq.) Negative mass has to be physically real for my theory to work (another reason that makes a Nobel prize improbable.)

You have to give me time on responding to your original work. Many of the terms are unfamiliar to me.

Tom

"Neither space nor time are available for us to experiment upon."

James, remember Einstain's requirement for a phenomenon to be 'physically real' " ... independent in its properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions."

The physical conditions imposed by controlled experiment would be impossible in trying to establish the physical reality of spacetime, because an isolated spacetime does not exist in principle.

Einstein's gravity research (like Newton's) always focused on what we could discern of nature's workings in situ, i.e., without imposing special conditions, without disturbing the system. The relativity results -- such as correctly predicting the precession of Mercury's orbit, and Einstein lensing -- assume the pristine laboratory of nature, not the controlled laboratory of a scientist.

Tom

  • [deleted]

  • Post #401

Tom,

"Einstein's gravity research (like Newton's) always focused on what we could discern of nature's workings in situ, i.e., without imposing special conditions, without disturbing the system. The relativity results -- such as correctly predicting the precession of Mercury's orbit, and Einstein lensing -- assume the pristine laboratory of nature, not the controlled laboratory of a scientist."

The prediction of the precession of Mercur'ys orbit and Einstein lensing must be made based upon properties of objects. Space and time are not objects. They also are not part of physics equations including Einstein's. Their pretended identities are representative of other properties that do have to do with the properties of objects. The t is cyclic activity. The l or d is length. Both of these pertain to objects and the predictions of equation that use them also consist of effects that pertain to objects. The predictions of relativity theory must be and can be made using only properties of objects. At least then the physics equations will have some of the detrimental effects of theory removed. The ideas that time and space, as unique properties, play roles in physics equations is such theory. My position is that physics empirical evidence results only from patterns in canges of velocity. Neither space nor time have demonstrated changes of velocity or velocity or have appeared in any form in empirical evidence.

James