• [deleted]

  • Post #159

Eckard,

You believe that "the speed of a wave (no matter whether sound or light) is independent of the speed of its source, and there is no contraction of the real length..."

I tried to call your attention to the fact that the two statements are incompatible. Length contraction (initially introduced by FitzGerald and Lorentz) can easily be derived from the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. I referred you to David Morin's text (pp. 12-16) because his derivation is good and easy to understand.

Pentcho Valev

  • [deleted]

  • Post #160

Dear Eckard,

Thanks. I am not really upset, but it shows what kind of a set up FQXi is.

I think, the elimination of my posts happen automatically at FQXi on Ellis' instructions. Anyway, even if it is othrwise, when someone 'reports a post as inappropriate' it is flagged for the administrator to check whether it really has inappropriate subject matter. If the administrator does not use his proper judgement or acts in a biased manner, then FQXi is running this competition for the benefit of a pre-selected few with a definite set of ideas.

Best regards,

Viraj

Pentcho Valev,

Sorry, it is not a matter of belief but an experimentally proven and undisputed fact that the front of an acoustic wave in air propagates relative to the air independent of possible motion of the source or the receiver. If you know that a missile can travel faster than the sound it emits then you may conclude that there is no superposition of the two velocities. Otherwise the sound would be heard before the missile hits the target.

What's your problem?

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #162

I meant light, Eckard, not sound. "Sound" just happened to be in the phrase I quoted from you - I would have deleted it if I had known your reaction.

What's my problem? Well... lots of problems... let's discuss them some other time.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

Are phonons pointlike particles? I guess, that's close to your problem?

Eckard

Dear Constantinos,

Having no illusions I did not yet vote and will not do so until I understood at least those essays that I would like to support. I am not sure. Just after I wrote that something in the essay by George Ellis reminds me of making negative resistance an issue, and George Ellis replied imprudently, he lost his leading position. My numerical votes will not make such a difference.

Maybe you can help Pentcho. He seems to believe that he is entitled to derive from MMX and Pound/Rebka experiment that light consists of photons that behave like bodies. Most cranks believe that the appealing postulate of relativity is correct but c is not constant. Not just I agree with you that any wave propagates with its specific c, and of course, if something propagates with c then this indicates it is a wave rather than a body. Perhaps, nobody is interested in your calculations because they are not surprising.

In case of my essay I noticed several unfulfilled promises to comment on it. Why?

My essay touches many taboos and offers unbelievable relevant corrections. Virtual all mathematicians and physicists were told that Georg Cantor, Hilbert, Einstein, etc. were the greatest. They suspect that I, a nobody, can only be wrong. It is much easier to ignore all my arguments than to try and refute only a single one of them. The most helpful comment on an argument of mine was made by George Ellis when he hurt me by recommending Feynman's lectures to me. It will be troublesome to me revealing mistakes.

Best,

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #165

Dear Eckard,

I think we can all lament the lack of real substantive discussions of the arguments in our essays. But some of us can claim more such discussion than others. I think you are among those with more! While I still wait for targeted replies to specifics I've made. Still, I am grateful for all comments. And in earnest seek to respond to all comments. To the extend of my understanding of these.

You write, "nobody is interested in your calculations because they are not surprising." Could you please elaborate on that? Specifically, please argue why the following are not "surprising":

1)My Planck's Formula derivation using simple continuous processes and not needing 'energy quanta', as all other derivations of this Formula had to.

2)My mathematical derivation of The Law of Inertia, showing this not a postulated 'universal physical law', but a mathematical truism in my formulation; using the prime physis 'eta' (the time integral of energy)

3)My mathematical derivation of the de Broglie equations illuminating the real nature of 'matter waves', frequency and wavelength. Allowing these to be any real positive or negative number (not 'mathematical artifacts')

4) My argument to Pentcho that all observers are at rest relative to 'empty physical space'. Since otherwise an observer would need to be 'apart and outside' this physical space which defines existence in our Universe. Thus explaining CSL.

5)My mathematical proof (and importance) of the proposition: "if the speed of light is constant, than light propagates as a wave". This, note, is a different statement from what Maxwell has shown, "if light is a wave, than the speed of light is constant". My statement clearly shows CSL contradicts the Photon Hypothesis. Thus falsifying the corpuscular nature of light.

Eckard, these are only a small part of my many 'striking' results. And only what I included in my Endnotes and under my essay discussion - new for the 'public record'. That others don't find these 'striking' speaks more on their expectations of what constitutes 'striking' than the striking truth contained in these.

We are all programed to 'meet our expectations'. And if we are looking for 'multiverses' and exotic Spacetime 4-manifolds and non-linear operators acting on Hilbert spaces, we could miss some simple truths Nature has placed in front of our eyes! Which truths our 'metaphysical dislocation' will not allow us to 'see'. What my essay, "The Metaphysics of Physics", argues is happening with modern physics!

Best regards,

Constantinos

  • [deleted]

  • Post #166

Dear Constantinos,

re. your response to Eckard, Number 4. is really interesting. Where is that empty space (that the observer can perceive filled with objects)? Is it external to the observer or an internal fabrication (from received sensory data input), produced together with the "information"/ "knowledge" that this exists externally? Which then begs the question if that which is seen is not the external reality, what is there instead? and how does the unobserved space and objects relate to the observed?

It seems to me that though the observer is also a part of the foundational external reality, the fabrication he makes from received data is both a part of it and separate. As the electrical and chemical activity of the brain is a part of the foundational reality but the perceived output is not. (for analogy :The paper and ink of a book are a part of the external reality but the fantasy realm fabricated from the words (or symbols) is not.) I mentioned Roger Penrose's (Twistor space) description of the light cone and Joy Christian's recent work in my essay as I think they might helpfully describe, or lead to helpful mathematical description of, the data transmission through the pre-space-time environment from source to detection, which is the link between the two facets of reality.

So if you mean space-time when you refer to "this physical space which defines existence in our Universe", then maybe the observer really is not contained within it (but contains it ). It is a very strange set structure. I don't know what you will make of that. I think it is interesting and thought perhaps you might too.

I regret not having yet responded with worthwhile, helpful feedback on your essay. If it was easy I'd have done it long ago.I still have good intentions.

Dear Georgina, dear Constantinos,

Let me explain in what my notion of reality differes from yours. Ken Wharton and I agreed on that there is only one objective reality. Ian Durham spoke of slightly different ones.

I wrote on p. 4: "While reality and causality are, of course, also assumptions, we need them as logical alternatives to unacceptable mere imagination and mysticism, respectively."

It does not matter whether I correct or wrong when I assume the reality of an object of concern. We can neither observe nor prepare for sure and completely such reality because it is a generally assumed attribution, not something tangible.

The past is the domain of reality. The future is the domain of possibility. The notion present means a deliberately undecided mix of both and is therefore not suited for physics. In reality, expected events did not yet happen.

It is reasonable to assume that one and the same object is only once real. Two different signs can be used for instance in order to numerically describe opposite directions. Given a calculation yields positive and negative frequencies. May we necessarily attribute different physical meanings to them? No. Because of lost information with almost always skipped logical steps from reality to the mathematical model and return, one has to check the mathematical result and if necessary omit artifacts, in particular the advanced solution.

Everybody will agree that for instance a negative length is unreal. It can however be necessary to not omit it as long as one operates in a fictitious mathematical domain. See my Figs. 1 and 2.

Regards,

Eckard

    Dear Constantinos,

    Perhaps nobody in the community will be surprised when we show that Pentcho is wrong. Only Georgina found your 4. claim interesting. You wrote:

    "My argument to Pentcho that all observers are at rest relative to 'empty physical space'. Since otherwise an observer would need to be 'apart and outside' this physical space which defines existence in our Universe. Thus explaining CSL."

    If observer 1 is in motion relative to observer 2 then I wonder how they both can be at rest relative to empty physical space (Israel Perez's aether).

    I will avoid a discussion with Georgina because she follows Albert Einstein who made the observer an issue. While observers are of course not outside reality, I see processes in the objective reality quite independent from any observer except if he is involved in the observed process. I suggest you will discuss with Georgina elsewhere unless there is a connection to my essay.

    Pentcho got it: "Michelson and Morley should have calculated and expected the NULL result". I am sure this is definitely an annoying surprise to many physicists and also exciting and unbelievable to almost every layman.

    Best regards,

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    • Post #169

    Dear Eckard,

    you wrote: "the past is the domain of reality". That is an opinion based upon a particular understanding of what reality is. You are I think referring to those things that have been measured or observed. Do things only become a reality upon observation?

    I agree that -The- (unwritten) future is open to possibility. However knowing that perception comes after actualised events aren't those things now existing ahead of the output realisation or manifestation of them also in a more foundational way in a domain of reality, (ie. one that is ahead of the experienced present, not the past).

    Amanda Gefter has written about each observer having their own observed universe.Something to which I have also alluded. In that context an object can be be observed as a reality more than once, as each observer will manifest the object from the data he/she /it has uniquely received.

    While I probably don't fully understand the sign problem you are talking about, it does seem to me that whether there is a rotation to right or left does make a difference as it will alter the data that is received and so the output manifestation produced from it. Which could make an obvious difference for a non uniform source object. I am not saying this to be annoying or disrespectful but just to give another perspective- that may or may not be relevant to your argument.

    By the way I would greatly appreciate your consideration of my essay as I respect your knowledge and very sensible consideration of matters.

    Kind regards Georgina.

    Hello Georgina,

    We should be considerate of our host and move our discussion elsewhere away from his living room. He may wish to retire to his bedroom for the evening! Look for my response under my essay.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #171

    Dear Eckard you write,

    "If observer 1 is in motion relative to observer 2 then I wonder how they both can be at rest relative to empty physical space"

    They will both be at rest relative to the 'empty physical space' they occupy.

    May we simplify the space to the straight line IR of real numbers and set the velocity between two points on it equal to zero. Why should we deny the possibility to move this tandem relative to IR?

    Dear Escard,

    Thanks for the reference. I think that result of Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment by Feist prove again that observer can not with the help of internal two-way measurements of signal speed to find its velocity in space. If you take in account in the Feist experiment Lorentz contraction then the formula for signal speed gives dilation of time.

    Sergey Fedosin

      Dear Eckard

      I take your essay as querying taking the use of mathematical models of reality too far: and I agree with you on this. I also agree on your take on time, and on your comment "It is mistake to keep differential equations for primary. They are merely abstractions from the originally integrating relationships" Correct: and those integrating relationships involve boundary conditions or initial conditions whereby global relations constrain local physics - in concordance with my own essay.

      I disagree on special relativity, as you know. I believe it's very well established. Any experiments of quality that disagree with it must of course be take seriously: they must be repeated by independent experimenters to check their validity. But you'll find it hard finding experimentalists willing to invest time, money and effort into that project: given all the other experiments that support SR, it is so unlikely it will prove anything interesting.

      George

      George

        • [deleted]

        • Post #175

        Dear Eckard,

        All paradox (like all magic) plays on the 'mental framing' we place on the situation we seek to understand. In Physics, the paramount view should be 'physical' and not 'mathematical'. Don't we agree? The question we need to constantly ask is "what is physical". Do you agree? The explanation I offered aims to define 'physical space'. And thus determine what is meant by 'physical existence'. All 'physical objects' in order to 'physically exist' must fill 'physical space' and require a duration of 'physical time'. The later I claim is assured by the Second Law while the former I propose is assured by the CSL. Which, in my way of looking at this, is the equivalent statement "all 'physical objects' are at rest with the 'physical space' they occupy". The 'physical object' defines the 'physical space' it occupies. In this view, we do not have physical objects moving relative to the space they occupy. In other words, the points in your comment cannot be moving in "tandem relative to IR". Though mathematically this can be thought, physically this would require the points to be 'apart and outside' the line. To not 'physically exist', in other words! Am I misunderstanding you? Probably I am.

        Dear Constantinos,

        Perhaps you are imagining an individual empty space belonging to each individual object. Engineers prefer just one space and (except for proponents of Einstein's relativity) a common time. Mathematically, we are always assume only one IR.

        Regards,

        Eckard

        • [deleted]

        • Post #177

        Dear Eckard,

        In math I am free to imagine! But in physics, we must always stay well grounded on the physical. And what is meant by 'physical'? My previous comments revolve around just that matter. And though we can imagine physical objects moving in empty space, such notion of physicality is imagined and prone to paradox. I suggest that 'physicality' is determined (along with the Second Law) by the CSL Postulate. Which, in my view, is equivalent to "all 'physical objects' are at rest with the 'physical space' they occupy". We just cannot physically separate a physical object from the physical space it occupies. In my humble opinion, many paradoxes result from just such separation.

        You write, "Perhaps you are imagining an individual empty space belonging to each individual object." I answer: I am not imagining "individual empty space belonging to each individual object". Just as I am not imagining a common empty space in which physical objects are in motion. But I am convinced that no physical object can be in motion relative to the space it OCCUPIES! Aren't you? Perhaps rephrasing this may help to convey what I mean. No physical object can be in motion relative to itself!

        Constantinos

        Dear George,

        I am delighted. You are the first one who understood uncommon thoughts of mine and who was courageous enough to support them in public. I know that there are no experts who dare to entirely agree with me.

        Physicists tend to refuse reconsidering questionable applications and interpretation of mathematics. My Fig. 2 points to unphysical symmetries.

        Mathematicians are reluctant to question arbitrary instead of logical definitions of basic notions like number, or continuity.

        When I wrote "originally integrating relationships", I tried to remind of the physically implemented integrators used in analog computers. I did not write "integral equations". Yes, there are a few processes in reality that can be well described with initial or boundary conditions. However, most processes do not have an exactly defined begin and also no exactly predictable end. You may believe in Adam and Eve. Repair of defect genes requires a larger population.

        What about Feist, I deliberately quoted Bruhn because he did not even bother to search for a possible mistake. I see myself proficient enough in electronics and acoustics as to confirm that the measurement by Feist was correctly performed.

        In contrast to e.g. the measurement by Nimtz that was too involved as to be not possibly flawed, and to OPERA that also demonstrated how difficult it is to avoid flaws in very sophisticated systems, the measurement by Feist was too simple as to hide an error. While a check of the validity of the experiment is most likely not necessary, my explanation can be wrong. It is so far the only plausible one.

        Contests and discussions at fqxi are a market place of old and new arguments.

        - I maintain that the ear can definitely not analyze future input.

        - The expectation of a non-null result for the MMX was wrong if my explanation of the experiment by Feist is correct.

        I am asking myself: Doesn't this render the remedies by Ritz, Lorentz, or Einstein presumably unnecessary? Don't virtually all experiments that are claiming to support SR only confirm what also is valid with a preferred frame of reference, simultaneity, and an objective separation between past and future? I appreciate your helpful readiness to provide hints to antitheses.

        Sincerely,

        Eckard