Daryl,

I apologize for late answering you questions of 22. Aug. 23:56 in Edwin Klingman's thread.

Do not blame me for sloppiness in language. With "for observers" I meant as observers may observe it. I did not write "the" observer but observers. Different observers at the same location may observe it differently if they are moving with different velocities relative to the observed at distance object. There is perhaps no decisive difference between "according to" and "as determined by" while I tend to be reluctant using the biased construct "in the proper coordinate system of".

Writing "time-coordinate of one system" you are assuming that there is no universal time. You are a good fellow of Lorentz/Einstein. I see my Fig. 5 an understandable to everybody explanation why Potier, Lorentz, Michelson and Morley were wrong when they expected a non-null result. This is utterly important in so far it puts Einstein's special theory of relativity in question too. What I cautiously called your weak parts are therefore not YOUR mistakes.

I consider you quite right: "The past, present, and future don't all "exist" in the same sense". Didn't you read my firs appendix? While the notions past and future exclude each other, the present time belongs to quite a different, deliberately undecided view. To me someone who writes past, present, and future, as did Einstein, does not show that he seriously deals with the role of past and future in physics.

By the way, the correct spelling in German is not ideel but ideell.

You wrote:

(Einstein's) "relativity adds another layer, complicating this picture further, because it comes to mean that together with the dual meaning of the copular verb "is" in relation to the dimension of time, there must also be a dual meaning of the word "time" if the theory should be reconciled with a Heraclitean flowing present. Thus, the common-sense impression of "time" that we have when we consider present "existence" in three-dimensional space---which is what we refer to when we say two events occur "simultaneously"---must be separated from the sense of "time" that's described by any space-time coordinate system."

I agree with the caveat that only the common sense notion - not impression - of time is necessary as to be concluded from my Fig. 5.

You added: "This is precisely because any claim that two events occur at the same "time" in the latter sense cannot be universal, since any change of coordinates describes one event as preceding the other; i.e., "synchronicity" is relative." My Fig. 5 implies what other experiments also have shown: We may admit a universal frame of reference and also a universal time: absolute synchronicity.

If you understood this then you may reconsider your further reasoning yourself.

Sorry for my disillusioning words.

Eckard

    Dear George Ellis,

    I appreciate your effort to read my essay and hope my effort was not in vain when I tried to convey an important message with each of my five Figs.

    I have almost nothing to add to what you wrote concerning actual and potential infinity. I already dealt with these questions in earlier essays.

    What about lacking covariance of Maxwell's equations, I was initially confused by two arguments:

    - MMX

    - Maxwell's equations

    Did you read papers by Thomas Phipps Jr. concerning Maxwell's and Hertz's equations? I gave just one reference. Others are easily to be found at Apeiron.

    By chance I have at hand: "On Hertz's Invariant Form of Maxwell's Equations" Physics Essays, vol.6, number 2, 1993,

    Thank you for your hint.

    Sincerely,

    Eckard Blumschein

    Dear Constantinos,

    So far I didn't get aware of many essays with important implications. I have to carefully read your essay as to possibly find something influential in excess of your last essay.

    While my Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are merely improved illustrations of ideas I already uttered in earlier essays, my Fig. 5 is new and hopefully the key to the insight that, beginning with Lorentz, a lot of modern physics has been unjustified speculation.

    Alan Kadin does of course still adhere to what turned out wrong if my Fig. 5 is correct. Nonetheless my gut feeling lets me support his opinion concerning waves and particles, and he uttered what I also am guessing concerning Hilbert space, cf. the essay by Swingle. You were a mathematician. Can you share our objections to Hilbert space?

    You caused me to read and comment on the essay by Eric Reiter. I hope he will reply after reading the essays of Alan and me.

    Best,

    Eckard

    Dear Eckard,

    What I think of Hilbert space? I like it! As a math-think. But not as a physics-thing. But there are more fundamental formulations in physics wrong for physics, in my view. Take 'particle photons' for example. Or the Spacetime continuum. With 'eventpoints' at each 'instant of time', t. I have shown the Second Law determines 'physical time' to be 'duration of time', Δt. This may help explain the 'missing energy' which goes by the alias 'dark'.

    What makes my current essay different is my claim any mathematical model of 'what is' the Universe is metaphysical in essence. The fundamental question is: "why should our mathematical deductions be reflected in our measurements of Nature"? The idea that Nature can be completely described by mathematical models is a metaphysical belief. And in order to prevent physics from morphing into metaphysics, Basic Law of physics should be mathematical tautologies applied to measurements. I show Planck's Law, for example, is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of energy measurement.

    Roger Schlafly also questions Math in Physics. And his essay currently ranks first! While mine lingers between 'being and nothingness'...

    Constantinos

    P.S. Recalling an earlier discussion you had concerning the existence of 'negative frequencies', you may be interested to know in my formulation the de Broglie frequency and wavelength can be any real number both positive AND negative. Furthermore, I find no need to use complex numbers.

    Dear Constantinos,

    Math-think is certainly not a typo but your creation.

    When I asked "can you share our (Kadin's and mine) objections to Hilbert space, I meant to how von Neumann introduced it as the space for physical states. You certainly know he wrote to Birkhoff in 1935: I do not believe in Hilbert space any more. Did he put emphasis on believe or rather on Hilbert space? It rarely happens that someone gets aware that his belief is just a belief and utters this as frankly as did Hilbert who was a finitist, see what member Ellis just wrote to me. More likely the crowd looks for remedies like Zermelo's AC or the meanwhile advanced to something valuable renormalization.

    In order to get a more concrete answer I would like to specify my question to include your opinion on Kadin's ideas.

    Concerning your P.S.: I never wrote that complex numbers are useless. In order to understand your notion of positive and negative frequency and wavelength I would need a more specific hint. Let me explain as simple as possible why, in principle, one did not need a negative quantity at all in order to describe reality: How large ever something finite might be, we may shift our point of view to its highest value and look only backwards.

    Best,

    Eckard

    Dear Eckard,

    In my view, Hilbert space is only a mathematical model of physical states. It has no separate physical reality apart from math. As all mathematical ideas, it is a 'think' rather than the 'things' of physics. And as I argue in my essay, I believe all mathematical models of what is the Universe are metaphysical in essence and so will ultimately fail. The only way out of this inescapable truth is to base physics only on mathematical tautologies applied to our measurements. As for your specific request. I have not yet read Kadin's essay and as soon as I do and understand what he is saying I will comment separately on that.

    But I just needed to respond to you concerning my P.S. In my derivation of the de Broglie frequency and wavelength, these are 'rates' (see my essay Endnotes for the derivations). And as rates, they can be any real number positive or negative. For example, my local representation of energy in blackbody radiation is E0 eνt where E0 is intensity and ν is 'frequency' of radiation. Energy in physics is thought to be a 'wave' with a 'frequency'. Imaginary numbers are thrown into the math mix in order to get energy expressed as 'waves'. But I don't believe that is necessary. In my formulation we have an 'exponential of energy' and a 'growth rate' instead. Let me quickly add, I like complex numbers! And I find them very useful in many ways. But I just don't believe they are needed to mathematically represent radiation.

    Best,

    Constantinos

    The 'exponential representation of energy' did not come through in my comment above. It should be E0 exp(vt).

    Dear Eckard,

    OK. I took a look at Alan Kadin's essay. Didn't understand much of it. But here is what I understand. Correct me if I misunderstand. He writes, "a matter wave is a real coherent rotation of a fundamental vector quantum field". I understand 'rotation' and I understand 'vector field'. But what in the (physical) world is a 'quantum field'?

    Alan seeks to change the current paradigm by keeping the same quantum ideas. But only with a new twist. Or rotation! It's a little like keeping Ptolemaic epicycles while talking about gravity. Though Alan may be able to get the math to work out and produce " both particle trajectories and particle discreteness [that] follow from the dynamics of the quantum field", I don't believe more math will fix physics! Only a 'physical view' that makes sense can fix physics.

    I believe I have presented such view. Fundamental to that view is "energy propagates continuously as a wave but manifests discretely in interactions". Clearly this resolves the 'wave-particle dilemma' and the 'measurement problem'. Furthermore, my derivation of de Broglie frequency and wavelength allow these to be any real positive or negative numbers. A new meaning of 'matter waves' is revealed.

    I prefer my naive view to mathematical obstructions!

    Best,

    Constantinos

    Dear Constantinos,

    Having read your new essay now, I felt uncomfortable seeing my name among so many viXra postings. While I like inverted words like cepstrum and I viXra provides the opportunity to publish without censorship, I did not use viXra and I guess, it might be difficult to find valuable papers in it. You quoted me without any obvious indication for having understood any of my criticisms.

    Don't you understand that positive and negative de Broglie frequency and wavelength are mathematical artifacts that can be ascribed to the attribution of a sign to the direction of velocity? Kinetic energy depends on squared velocity and is therefore always positive.

    You complained that Roger Schlafly has been ranking on top while you are allegedly saying the same. I am objecting to his "Lessons from relativity", and these are certainly welcome to the majority. I enjoy that he dared writing "Folly of quantum computing".

    Alan Kadin seems to find not many support because he questions that the photon is a particle.

    Eckard

    Dear Eckard you write, " positive and negative de Broglie frequency and wavelength are mathematical artifacts". That may be true, but does not in any way illuminate the paradox of 'matter-waves' that is at the heart of many discussions here and the point to my last comment. There is nothing real about this view. Just more "mathematical artifacts" which you and I and others have been criticizing! (have I got that part wrong Eckard re:your criticisms?

    In contrast to this sad state of affairs, 'growth and decay' is all real! No "mathematical artifacts" here! And that is what my derivation of the de Broglie frequency and wavelength reveal.

    Your defense of Alan Kadin is admirable! I too support his questioning of the photon as particle. In fact, I mathematically prove in my Endnotes of my current essay the following proposition: "if the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave". Perhaps you have disassociated from my essay before you reached that part!

    Constantinos

    Dear Eckard:

    Thanks for posting this.

    First of all, thanks for correcting my spelling of ideell. I had known that, but I think I confused it with the French.

    Secondly, I certainly wasn't blaming you for sloppiness in language. I think that was your criticism in the previous post, which I agreed was an issue, so I was just clarifying the actual intended use of the word "for", which you pointed out could be taken to mean something else. You wrote, "Do they really happen for observers or do they happen at the location where they happen?" and I agreed it was the latter and that the use of the word "for" is sloppy.

    Finally, most importantly, from the rest of your comments I'm pretty sure you haven't read my essay despite, where I argued *for* an absolute cosmic time, despite your criticism that there are weak points in my view. I've argued that despite the way time passes in arbitrary frames of reference according to relativity theory, cosmology indicates that there has to be one true cosmic passage of time, against which time scales for relatively moving observers. I've pointed out that this means an absolute simultaneity-relation. Such a universal frame of reference and universal time does not---and cannot, according to relativity theory---come to mean absolute *synchronicity*, though. Unless you're denying SR entirely, you can't claim this because according to the theory two clocks in relative motion can't be synchronised: from either one's perspective, the other's rate has to be slowed. However, as I've shown in my essay, this does not mean that there can't be a coherent universal time that defines absolute *simultaneity*.

    Daryl

    Dear Daryl,

    A bit pregnant is impossible. Either one denies the separation between past and future, then one has good chance to win the contest, or one denies SR entirely. In the first case one is a monist who looks at the world from outside, In the opposite case one does not leave the own perspective inside the real world. While I respect those who hope for a third possibility, I am sure, they will at best cheat themselves.

    That's why my essay starts with Einstein's "something outside science" and ends with my "trust in inexhaustible chances" to reveal mistakes like those by Nimtz and by Michelson/Lorentz. I anticipate many to either ignore my essay or give me the lowest possible score after they failed or did not even try to refute my Fig. 5.

    If I persuaded you to reconsider your belief then you will hopefully not be so naive to frankly utter your change from Saulus to Paulus in public. This could damage your career.

    Eckard

    Dear Eckard,

    I have in fact proven the possibility of this third alternative (the one you state, not Pentcho: I'm for the two postulates, just not the third---that absolute space and time are superfluous and can't be detected---and I DO NOT sing Divine Einstein) in my essay. It is by definition impossible for "observer" C' to interact in any way with "observers" A, B, and C, who exist in an absolute "flowing" present.

    By the way, with regard to your Saulus/Paulus comment, have you by chance read Ref. [9] by Weyl in my essay. It's quite a neat article. For example, after Petrus opens with "Lass uns heute ausfuehrlich darueber sprechen, warum du nicht mehr glaubst, dass (*M*) die Traegheit eines Koerpers durch das Zusammenwirken aller Massen des Universums zustande kommt. O Saulus! Saulus! wie kannst du dich so gegen die offen zutage liegende Wahrheit verstocken!" Paulus responds by saying "ich deine eben ausgesprochene Ueberzeugung nicht mehr zu teilen vermag; und wenn hier der Fels liegt, auf dem die Relativitaetskirche steht, o Petrus!, so bin ich in der Tat ein Abtruenniger geworden. Aber um dich ueber meine Ketzerei ein wenig zu beruhigen..."

    You can call me Paulus if you'd like, because I do think space-time geometry is Lorentzian, and that the mathematical theory of relativity is correct---just so long as you know that I'm for a presentist interpretation of the theory that involves an absolute cosmic time and is therefore fundamentally at odds with much of what relativity theory is commonly supposed to describe.

    Daryl

    Since this is an English site, here's my translation of that quote:---

    Peter: "Let us talk today in detail about why you no longer believe, that (M) the inertia of a single body results from the interaction of all the masses of the Universe. O Saul! Saul! how can you so harden yourself against Truth that is as clear as day!"

    Paul: "I can no longer share this outspoken conviction of yours; and if here lies the rock on which the relativity church stands, o Peter!, then I have indeed become an apostate. But to calm you a little about my heresy..."

    (I referred to this in a footnote on page 3 of my essay, where I quoted Peter's later remark: "If the cosmological term fails to help with leading through to Mach's principle, then I consider it to be generally useless, and am for the return to the elementary cosmology [Wenn es mit Hilfe des kosmologischen Gliedes nicht gelingt, das Machsche Prinzip durchzufuehren, so halte ich es ueberhaupt fuer zwecklos und bin fuer die Rueckkehr zur elementaren Kosmologie.]")

    Dear Daryl,

    I learned from you that in gambling, if you bet one pound on a horse whose odds are 10 to 1, you will receive ten pounds if the horse wins.

    I am not interested in and I cannot say anything about de Sitter's gambling. The same applies for Big Bang speculations. When Weyl used St. Paul and St. Peter as to dispute with Einstein, this might be different from my use of the metaphor Saulus/Paulus. You outed yourself as a presentist who prefers an absolute time.In the latter we seem to agree. What about my objection against presentism read my first appendix. Did you find some agreement with neo-Lorentzians like e.g. Selleri?

    Best,

    Eckard

    Pentcho,

    Your logic is not compelling. You omitted the possibility that both postulates may be at least imperfect. The postulate of constant c may be wrong if c is referred to the observer while correct if c refers to an absolute space. The postulate of relativity seems to be quite logical. However, the with the same argument did Dedekind successful beg for accepting something nobody ever can prove. The Galilean relativity assumes a closed cavity. Electromagnetic fields extends endlessly.

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    • Post #138

    Eckard, you wrote: "The postulate of constant c may be wrong if c is referred to the observer while correct if c refers to an absolute space."

    You are right in a sense but note that, whether or not Einstein says it explicitly, the conclusions of special relativity are derived from the assumption that the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER or IN THE FRAME OF THE OBSERVER is constant. Just take a look at some textbook derivation of time dilation: first it is assumed that the speed of light is c in the observer at rest on the ground's (B's) frame and then the miraculous time dilation is derived.

    So if the postulate of constant c is wrong when c is referred to the observer, then that's the end of relativity.

    Pentcho Valev

      Hello Eckard. In English, I do not read this essay with your familiar on the annotation and successfully. That's what I understood. How to avoid mathematical physics determinism neobsnovannoy intuition? Suggest this approach. We do not know the origin of mathematics. On this, we are moving in its field intuitively, without analyzing. You can see the literal math, operates numbers and quantities. And you can see the abstract mathematics. An abstract mathematics is geometry and formulas. The formula E = mc2 literally. Maybe she needed a scientist to make a nuclear bomb. But in school textbooks it unnecessarily. Abstract formula gave M.Plank. It has not yet begun to analyze. Physics necessary abstraction. But this is metaphysics. A bit of metaphysics in my essay "The information - quantum energy balance" of 30 August.

      Mistranslation of information - quantum energy balance. Necessary: information - quantum energy balance.

        Pentcho Valev,

        Einstein's relativity is dead, vivat Einstein's relativity. Georg Cantor's naive set theory is dead, vivat Georg Cantor's naive set theory. Read what Ebbinghaus wrote with Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's words: If someone by an obvious error ...

        Even if Einstein's synchronization is logically unfounded and if there are an absolute space and absolute simultaneity; There are ample experimental results that obviously confirm for instance the impossibility to accelerate matter in excess of c.

        It is true that for instance the atomic bomb was wrongly celebrated by laymen as an achievement of Einstein's SR. I agree with Roger Schlafly that Einstein has been overestimated. I see him idolized, and I contempt idolizing.

        My intention is to clarify whether or not already Lorentz was misled by Michelson. So far nobody refuted my reasoning concerning Feist's experiment. Eventually I will show that Einstein's was not wrong in his resignation when he admitted that the now worries him seriously. My favorite essay was written by Ken Wharton. I consider it a beautiful collection of arguments in defense of Einstein whose weakness should be revealed one by one. Did you deal with this target?

        Eckard