If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Kinetics and the Conserved Photon Particle Assumption by Richard William Kingsley-Nixey
Richard
Eckard suggests your Fig.1 is 'obviously wrong' (showing waves doing c/n in a medium). However I've pointed out he was forgetting to allow for the fact that, in your Fig, the medium is moving, and that he must consider himself at rest IN that frame before he can validly measure propagation speed (in this case the 'outside'/background medium would be considered as in motion).
I characterise your explanation as consistent with that explanation, but if not do please advise. You may see Eckard's comment of today in a 7th Oct string on my essay blog. here. I'm not sure Eckard understood your more important Fig.2, so perhaps discuss this if you converse?
I thank you again for your kind comments on my own essay and commiserate that yours did not make the cut. Another who has comprehended and commented is a non author 'Judy N', who I think may share your last name, are you related?
Best wishes
Peter
[deleted]
Peter
I liked your clarification of Richards fig 1. I'd read Eckards post and smiled, There do seem to be few yet comprehending Peters model, supported by Richard, but I promise you don't have to be related to do so! Just intelligence and receptiveness to new conceps seem to suffice.
No, Eckard the N does not stand for Nixey, and we are not related in any way. I wish to be discrete due to my position, but the site admin has my Email address with my name, and I agree to Brendan confiming for you that the N is not for 'Nixey'.
Richard; I hope you're still about and interested. You must be disappointed at the results but so are many. I think the Cluster probes shock crossing analysis agreeing with Peter's hypothesis is quite brilliant. Thpough again few seem to comprehend the kinetics I encourage you to persist. I hope you also saw the close link with 'continuous spontaneous localisation' discussed, which seems to describe the coupling process in your shock.
Judy
[deleted]
Peter,
When I declared Fig. 1 of Richard Nixey's essay obviously wrong I referred to acoustic waves e.g. in air. I maintain, these waves propagate within air relatively to the medium air. I concluded from c+v on the left side that the medium is moving with v relative to the paper that shows Fig. 1. My point is, this motion of the medium air should be the same on the right side too. My own perspective and variants of measurement do not matter.
Judy,
My apology for my guess that N stands for Nixey. I wonder why your position is a reason for you to hide your identity. If you did reveal to which university you are belonging, this would certainly make your opinion more respected.
When I was a student fifty years ago in Dresden, N. J. Lehmann, our professor of mathematics did not reveal what N stood for. We called him therefore Nabla J. His name Nikolaus is unusual in Germany because to children the Nikolaus means Santa Claus. Nikolaus Joachim Lehmann was a pioneer of small computers in the early 1960 until the government of GDR stopped his work.
Eckard
Eckard,
I see your point, but consider; The waves know nothing of the approaching medium so their speed in the background is relative c plus v in the medium frame.
Lambda then changes in the new medium (which may be a lens or any detector) inversely to frequency. (That is the part often ignored and which it seems Pentcho cannot see the consequences of).
Once the moving medium is traversed (at c in the medium frame) that moving medium ecomes an emitter. Still in that frame, the waves will then be emitted at, and travel at c (in the near field). The speed is then c not c+v, and the wavelength is thus altered.
The really cool bit about Peters model is that he finds (for the far field) how and why the waves then revert to what you propose (not shown in my fig), which is identical to the approaching waves, so relative c plus v again!
The magnetohydrodynamic coupling mechanism is shown in my next diagram (which Peter refers to as equivalent to a fluid dynamic torque converter (as an auto gearbox, but linear) i.e. the particles all emit at c locally, but are in different states of motion, so mechanistically evolving c to c'.
There is classical observed 'Relativity' direct from a quantum mechnism, which is what Einstein was searching for, and probably the biggest breakthrough in physics for over 100 years. It's sad and surprising that nobody seems to have yet noticed or understood. Perhaps it's that most minds only work mathematically not logically?
Rich
PS. No Judy is not related to me
Judy
Yes, thanks. I appreciate you comments and agree both CSL cases. Ref Eckards matchmaking, I confirm I'm single and available but well over 60 I'm afraid.
Rich
[deleted]
Rich,
You wrote: "The waves know nothing of the approaching medium so their speed in the background is relative c plus v in the medium frame."
Let me try to understand this in terms of acoustic waves in air. Their speed re air is c. If their speed re a different medium/body is c plus v then I conclude that this medium/body is moving re air with velocity v. Correct? Given this is possible to the left of the medium/body. Why shouldn't then the velocity of the wave in the air to the right of the body also be c re air and c+v re medium/body?
A wave is not a bullet.
Eckard