Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

James,

"The clock moving at a constant velocity horizontal near the surface of the Earth is speeding through a graviational field. This was not a question about special relativity."

Then my answers have said all I can say, and will seem inconsistent with your own. In my universe there are not separate domains called 'SR', 'Gravity', QM etc, there is simply nature, little of which is understood by so called 'intelligent life'. Thie is the 'different' way of thinking I've suggested. A quanta or system (i.e. mechanical 'ticker') in inertial orbit around the earth, however close (so passing close and parallel to the surface) is at rest because its 'centre of momentum is unmoving' or 'unmoved'. Any such eccentricity is due to acceleration, from whatever cause. That fundamental view is simple and seems consistent. It may indeed have been "incorrect with regard to (your) question" but was correct in itself, and I'm not party to or probably 'in agreement with' the viewpoint underlying your question.

Length contraction of rigid bodies does not happen in the DFM any more than in experimental science, and contraction and dilation of non rigid bodies and sequence on acceleration are reduced to a simple description of temporal evolution of interaction that can be largely covered by Christian Doppler's findings.

Of Compton. The simple and rather meaningless answer is then No. To me the Compton effect is just one label for a poorly understood mechanism with many labels, and a more complete description comes via what is labelled Stokes/anti Stokes Raman scattering. I have found agreement that physics is indeed all about finding hidden likenesses and connections.

Your suggestion that 'encounters' are not physical, so may be 'further apart' than at a spatial interaction point, shows your very different way of considering absorption and scattering as a 'detection' process. I fear you are then a very long way from the viewpoint required for the DFM. No problem, we must each follow our own path and falsify our own models. If we all thought the same way then I suspect life wouldn't last 5 minutes!

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

I've moved your Nov16 post to here from the Oct5 string for ease, then reply;

"Your work covers so much territory that I'm going to have to break it down into manageable bites in order to reply. It was easier for me to understand and relate to this article I found by "DocJudith" (who is she?) so if you endorse the article, let me address first:

"It is predicted that the Fine-structure constant effectively increases with acceleration in this way to conserve input energy in accordance with the Law of Conservation of energy. The model proposes that 'c' is constant within these quantum clouds and considers the far reaching consequences."

In this at least, I am sure that we are talking about the same thing. You can find it discussed in much the same terms in both my "time barrier" and "time counts" papers linked earlier. The idea that the universe conserves energy by accelerating, I reduced to the statement: "Volume preserving is energy conserving." What I mean, is that the limit of universal acceleration (predicted numerically at 0.86c) requires the back-action of negative mass-energy to account for the equivalence of gravity and acceleration; this limit is the approximate speed at which a massive object is contracted by about 1/2 in the direction of travel, by the Lorentz formula and special relativity.

Consider that because bow shock in one direction is negative pressure in the opposing direction -- positive acceleration in the direction of the bow shock is negative acceleration in the other direction.

I've isolated three other statements from the article that apparently agree with my own conclusions. Let's see how this one does first. Tom"

The link was dead, but I think you're referring to a Wiki article by DocJudith who authored the David Whiffen article (ex UK NPA head and spectroscopy pioneer) whose work was fundamental in allowing development of the Discrete Field Model. I don't fully agree with all the characterisation, but I gather that's what happens to all theories once others get hold of them!

I see the links with your work, but not with the 0.86c and time (redshift z = 0.8) since deceleration became acceleration. However, I do agree acelleration 'in the other direction', and indeed identify a fully fledged physical (small scale) model of it in AGN (ion) jets. The 'balancing' jet may correlate with the other half of each re-ionized body having a predominance of anti matter.

Bit in fact I take a far more fundamental start point with no prior assumptions (i.e. of length contraction LC of rigid bodies). Let us go back and study how LC arose. It was ONLY ever required within SR to explain CSL for co-moving observers. It has not yet been found, and is at the root of the chasm with QM and most of the paradoxes. So if we can find ANOTHER way to explain CSL, more logically and compatible with the quanta, we may be able to remove all the paradoxes from Relativity.

This is exactly what the DFM offers. But a lot more fundamental assumptions must be dropped to make it understandable; Start from this; If there really is such a concept as 'Proper Time' (an emitted time period measured from the same state of motion as the emitter or propagating medium), then there must also be an 'improper time'. So what is it? Has it been defined? NO! But it should be, so try this;

It is time measured by an observer in any OTHER arbitrary state of motion. Using this time we then get APPARENT speed, which is different to PROPAGATION velocity. When actually ARRIVING AT a detector, the interaction itself modulates the speed to the local propagation speed c. That itself gives CSL FOR ALL OBSERVERS EVERYWHERE. i.e. the 'apparent speed' of an approaching rocket may be ANY speed subject to the speed of the observer, but it's real speed cannot be found without interaction, which changes the speed (to max c) which = CSL.

This provides exactly what Einstein was searching for, 'Local Reality' and Relativity derived from the quanta (atomic scattering), with no paradoxes. Ether as such is NOT required but space is NOT empty of quanta, just diffuse. So a local 3rd frame CAN and DOES always exist, but a LOCAL background, not the single absolute background AE had to ban.

I have a very long paper in draft identifying scores of other anomalies the model resolves. It's quite mundane and logical, but may be too 'different' for most minds to absorb or assimilate. The future of any race in the universe that can't absorb it may however be curtailed so a bit of effort could be rewarding.

It reveals itself bit by bit as past assumptions are removed, so first let me know if you can see the relative dynamics of the above. Do please at any point flag up all possible problems you think you may see.

Peter

Tom

And ref your 18.40 post. I agree a binding energy, and also what you may term a 'negative mass' but I see as simply the bottom half of a wave, where the apparent 0 is the meridian, but fluctuations are down as well as up, implying that 0 is not in fact 0 but just the 'ground state' or balanced energy condition. Perhaps negative mass is then analogous to the Dirac hole. However. I have no physical proposal and this is only a peripheral implication arising from the models ontology.

Do please ask about any terms unfamiliar to you. I'd like to pass you more explanatory links but don't wish to overwhelm you. One useful background paper may be the one accepted for the latest Hadronic Journal. (Issue No. 4. Vol. 35. Accepted Aug. 2012, not yet weblogged). But many other aspects are covered elsewhere. I'd value your view.

Peter

Tom,

Exposed!! Anticipatory plagiarism of my model. In one of the most severe cases of the last 100 years I've found my ideas copied by lauded physicist Dr Bruce McLaren, who died in the 1st World War. He was aided and abetted by Sir Oliver Lodge, who it turn out was guilty himself of stealing a key proposition of my essay and model, that the Doppler effect for a moving detector/prism;

"...depends REALLY on wavelength, but APPARENTLY on frequency, just as...with a grating."

That is on the NEW wavelength, spontaneously localised by the particles at the detector interface. He also then confirmed if detector advanced "...at velocity v towards the waves... then the 'virtual' velocity of the light towards the prism is V v." Note 'virtual velocity', NOT propagation velocity. They are allowed to be different as the media (spacetime geometries) are co-moving.

Lodge pointed out McLaren's Oct 1913 (Phil.Mag xxvi) paper in 1921 s6 vol.41 while AE was in Leyden, directly plagiarising my July 2012 FQXi essay well in advance by pointing out that IN A MOVING MEDIUM; "THE PATHS OF ENERGY ARE NOT NORMAL TO THE WAVEFRONT"!!

also that this is consistent with the PoR, if "the idea of drift of wavefronts are foreign to that theory." (and explaining the "prism and water filled telescopes" results.)

But the BIGGEST NEWS IS (Courtesy of Tom Miles) that Lodge also SPOTTED AND ADMITTED a problem due to that aberration angle error in his 1921 paper (Fig.13) But he did not track down the cause, identified in my 2010 GSc.Jnl paper; 'Lodges Error' confirmed by the Kinetic Reverse Refraction (KRR) identified in my essay, caused by his forgetting to get into the co-moving medium frame to measure the refracted angle in 1892.

The aberration angle is indeed the KRR angle, proving conserved photons and umbrellas are NOT needed! and that the IAU may now soon be able to re-adopt the aberration constant on a sound theoretical basis.

So a complete tangled mess is unravelled and all the bits fall into place. Does all that make sense? and is there time travel?, or is there really 'nothing new under the sun'!?

Peter

Ben,

Q 1 & 2 have the same answer. Dark Energy would provide the 'cosmological constant' (CC), and redshift is not directly or mainly related to CC but to propagation loss. I identify a number of cases of two effects mistaken for one in the essay. This is probably another case, as the recession of emitters does of course also give redshift.

For the complete picture it seems you'd need to do what you do at the cinema. Forget reality and 'strap yourself in' for the ride. The Universe did not have accelerated but decelerated expansion right from the start up to recent times. That much is accepted science (to z=0.8). The reverse of the curve is then an error due to inconsistency in applying the effects of the local WHIM and Halo matter - even in the same way as applied in emitter galaxies. The kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovitch effect proves this. This very day. The problem is that it's uncomfortable around current SR interpretation so remains ignored theoretically. Look at a quasar jet and it's evolution into an open spiral galaxy for a scale model of a universe. pictures here.

Q3. I consider Unruh largely a misunderstanding, and really just a clarified photoionization effect. i.e. it is proportional to SPEED through the field not acceleration. Again consistency with SR made 'acceleration' more palatable, but now we know the vacuum is not a vacuum why keep pretending? In astronomy it's quite clear an asteroid is also a comet. The coma grows as a function of velocity and particle density, just like all bow shocks, and the plasma shock ahead of the space shuttle skin on re-entry, up to 'optical breakdown' density (~10^21/cm^-3) where (radio etc.) em waves won't propagate. The purpose of the dense ion 'surface fine structure'/shock is a fluid dynamic coupling. A linear version of the torque converter of an auto gearbox, where each ion re-emits at it's own (continuously spontaneously localised [CSL]) c. so CSL = CSL = the SR postulates direct from n QM's.

Q 4. I had to go back past Descartes, even to Boscovitch to escape all Lorentz symmetries. Again, strap in; We have to leaver Poincare some way behind before we can turn round and get a full overview. The Laws say all frames are equivalent. People have assumed that does not mean just what it says. I assume it does, and it works better. i.e. It does NOT say that the 'proper time' between two events is invariant on TRANSFORM between frames. Only that once WITHIN a frame is is invariant. So see the formula I give. Nonsensical metaphysical 'time derivatives' do NOT transform, the wave function DOES transform because wavelength lambda (thus time between events) does NOT!!!

Physics now becomes astonishingly simple; Consider an 'inertial system' of particles (all at rest/or travelling at the same speed). We will call it a 'bus', and it's state of motion a 'frame'. It's bounded by windows that let em waves in. It may be 'in' a dense (air) or diffuse (space) particle medium. The bus accelerates into a new frame towards a distant source. All waves approach at c wrt the LOCAL background medium. On interaction, lambda reduces, due to the TWO SEPARATE factors of bus v and glass n (=1.55) so of course frequency f (timed by the BUS DRIVER) decreases, because f*lambda = c is a constant. The pedestrian outside still finds the OLD f, both locally and 'apparently' for the photons he can track from the scattering from within the bus.

His findings of apparent c and f IN the bus are irrelevant and all his mates running and driving past find different arbitrary f and speeds in the bus (but all find local c when light hits their own lenses!) The LT is a simple power curve, or hyperbola approaching 'optical breakdown' at c. (You'll find it as the inverse of the LHC fuel bill accelerating a bunch to c through the vacuum medium).

Now QM works better too, as the 'measurement problem' has also disappeared! Yes, each lens ion DOES affect the result! CSL direct from Raman scattering.

But it's the whole concept of Cartesian systems representing 'motion' that has proven invalid. Einstein's intuitive 'planes' and solid 'bodies' were correct. Descartes 'Wire frames' are no more valid for motion as geometry and the 'vector space' it spawned. Dynamic logic, 'evolution of interaction' and 'time stepping' maths are required.

I know that hasn't answered your questions in the terms you'd expect, but a simplified reality does seem to mean challenging more assumptions than we thought we'd ever made. Does it really sound like nonsense to you? That seems to depend on peoples level of in-Doctorination. But do keep asking. If you find the time, I do have a quite long draft paper covering many other aspects that'll need reviewing. In fact it appears we may have a bit of a collaboration going. If you're interested? mail me direct.

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

It's a slightly bizarre experience reading someone's new take on a familiar construction. I recall answering some questions on it due to the David Whiffen link, and I may still have an Email address. There's nothing I'd say is wholly 'wrong', but much I'd express rather differently. It seems to have been derived from my 2010 essay and a few but not all of my past papers.

I don't agree it's true to say it "supports the ether drag hypothesis" as it doesn't need 'ether' at all, however the 'long range' effect from a diffuse particle medium (WHIM) is equivalent. It reminds me I've always been astonished that the master of magnetohydrodynamics and up and down shifted scattering, George Stokes, didn't put that theory together with his 'drag' thesis to find the DFM 'atomic scattering' based logical solution.

It's also very far from 'complete' and I'm now chomping at the bit to offer some re-writes and additions, but am not sure of it's status, how to do so, or even where it's posted as it doesn't seem to be live on Wikipedia.

Do tell me which bits seem wrong or not logical to you, or gaps, and I'll try to draft some corrective or more explanatory notes.

thanks

Peter

Ben,

I didn't fully answer 2; No, Dark Energy isn't suggested as 'explained', except as the form of energy that matter 'condenses' from. The reason NASA took so long to get a good measure of ion density is because the probes and instruments propagated more ions ('pair production') via disturbance, or 'compression' (seemingly producing twin vortices, or 'toroids' with multiple spin axis energy, rather like these. Again, most of the properties we 'measure' are affected by measurement process.

But the particles are required to modulate em wave propagation to local c. They are then the 'instruments' of the dark energy field, in a beautifully simple system, where relative motion itself propagates the means to change propagation speed to local c.

The way I view it is that we only know ANYTHING by it's characteristics. So we know as much about dark energy as anything else, we just haven't got a name for what it's 'made of'. But what's in a name? I once christened it 'comprathene', a sub 'matter' form of energy locally 'at rest', as opposed to 'matter', which is the same stuff NOT 'at rest' wrt the majority.

Ether is too emotive a word, and Einstein was right about it not 'modulating' speed as such, or forming an 'absolute' background. It was just the further assumptions from that point on that took us off track. In the DFM it's simply a local non-absolute background, and condenses matter to do the modulating wherever needed. It was just one of the models I falsified, and the only one that passed, with a perfect score and building a heap of evidence in the process, while removing all paradoxes and anomalies. Is there an 'itch' you want to scratch in physics? Try it and report back.

best wishes

Peter

Tom,

An interesting new MNRAS paper on Dark Matter near the Sun, consistent with the DFM's underlying mechanism producing curved spacetime in a quantum friendly way, this one also on arxiv here. Carefully analysed it is clear it disproves Eddington's assumptions, but also confirms Einstein's predictions for the precession of the Mercury perihelion, but also now consistent with the quanta. Stunning stuff, but entirely consistent with pretty well all recent astronomical findings.

I now have permission to edit the DFM article, but nobody knows how! Any ideas? It is the same Judy who commented on my essay, and wrote the David Whiffen biography. The link with David and his work was a little tenuous, based on his pioneering spectroscopy work, but spectrosopy is at the heart of astronomical exploration and astrophysics, and the model, logically resolving just about all the many issues in astronomy, may not have come together without him. It's a shame astrophysics seems to have to rely on old physics theory as the foundation for interpretation, otherwise it would all seem to make perfect sense!

I hope you can help me understand how best to address reservations about the model by identifying perceived issues. Judy's proved helpful as one fresh pair of eyes, but is in physiology not physics or astronomy.

Thanks

Peter

Jim,

An MNRAS 'Dark Matter' paper also on arxiv. I thought of Mario and you when reading it. July 2012 paper. It's consistent with scores of others, right or wrong, but uses a different method to constrain particle densities. It's treated as I suggest, simply as 'matter' that is not yet within our limited detection capabilites (which may soon be changed by Gaia etc).

'Optical' images are also improving, and right out to cluster scale. The concept or term 'exotic particles' is very rarely used in astronomy. The 'warm hot intergalactic medium' (WHIM) is far more familiar. i.e. as this weeks ESA bulletin; Combined Planck optical image

I believe that should give you more than adequate evidence to back up the lead proposition in my essay, and hopefully clarify the understanding of 'dark matter' in astronomy as opposed to in 'theory'.

Best wishes.

Peter

PS I'll also post this on your own string.