Akinbo,

Einstein allowed a new logical SR postulate interpretation in his 1952 descriptions, distancing his theory from it's old interpretations as he knew;

"The history of theoretical physics is a record of the clothing of mathematical formulae which were right, or very nearly right, with physical interpretations which were often very badly wrong." (Jeans 1981).

An interpretation of a theory is well recognised at NOT the theory but often a cocoon of woolly confusion, or "near-contradictions and excess baggage" (Wilczec 2012).

As Mach said; "If, however, we so interpret it that we come into conflict with our experience, our interpretation is simply wrong."

So lets drop ALL preconceived interpretations of the postulates. (That's YOURS TOO!) and see if they CAN be logically interpreted consistent with his 1952 constructions.

PoR; "The phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest." (same as the English; "..laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference.."

I suggest that becomes entirely logically consistent if we consider each 'inertial system' ('frame of reference') as a 'local region of space', such as that encompassed by a bunch of electrons, with a single assignable group state of motion K. i.e. a 'centre of mass' rest frame. Smaller ones (K') are in relative motion within greater ones, so WITH domain boundaries. That's what the DFM invokes and finds perfectly consistent. It was only woolly prior assumptions that 'hid' it!

"Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"

That then goes almost without saying. If in motion through some background field in state K, the emitting body has some state K'. However large or small that system K' is, when the emissions leave it to propagate in the background system K they change speed at the boundary (TZ) to then do so at c in and wrt the new system rest frame K (so Doppler shifted).

Again, only woolly preconceptions hid that logic.

The logical system is 'Truth Function Logic' (TFL - see my 2012 essay) which applies to 'propositions', and brackets in arithmetic. Everything within a bracket relates ONLY to that bracket. We can have infinitely many bracketed functions within bracketed functions, hierarchically. NO COMPONENT WITHIN ONE CAN RELATE DIRECTLY TO ANY IN ANY OTHER!

Consistently applying the same rule for inertial systems then allows Truth Function Logic to apply to the postulates. However the familiar old interpretation is falsified! (perhaps why AE's 1952 paper was subjugated!). I hope that throws light on my comment that seemed to upset you so much.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

All what you are saying is correct but is already well known to Galileo and Newton.

But the part, "Everything within a bracket relates ONLY to that bracket. We can have infinitely many bracketed functions within bracketed functions, hierarchically" is your own assumption, i.e. you can continue doing your bracketing infinitely. Newton disagrees with you. He suggests at some level if the universe is not infinite there is an ultimate limit to your bracketing. That is just the difference.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

No. It's the rules of logic not 'my' rule. You persistently ignore what I write and don't check the references so contradict me without basis! TFL is a propositional logic with hierarchical structure. The rule of brackets in arithmetic uses it. Neither are finite and both avoid the paradoxes of all others including calculus', including the 'infinity' paradox. (Actually quantum 'modal' logic does borrow a similar structure).

TFL is well known as the ONLY logical structure that is not; "ultimately beset by paradox". Newton assumed the religious 'Big Bang' solution which must have had some 'position' in space, so leaves the problems both of 'what happened before', and 'what was around it'. Because it is not 'finite' you can always set your own background frame and the rules always work. If you wish to choose 'the universe' (as a 'rest frame') that's fine and valid, but you can only apply it LOCALLY. You CAN'T apply it as Newton suggested, which is equivalent to 'jumping' and ignoring intervening brackets.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Try using Newtons assumption in an arithmetical equation. You'll get the same illogical nonsense we have to deal with in physics today. EM propagation ('light') speed near Earth is c wrt Earth's own inertial system rest frame K, NOT the centre of the galaxy, universe, or some other arbitrary planet in some other galaxy which may be doing 0.5c wrt Earth (K''''''''''')!

Once you clear all the wool away that's what your left with. Unfamiliar, but impeccable when evaluated objectively! All I do is find a way well developed CORRECT findings (jigsaw puzzle pieces) can fit together. It's the only way as there's no 'picture on the box' except false ones we guess at. If we expect mainstream physicists to let go of old assumptions and test new ones then I propose we must prove that we can do so ourselves Akinbo!

Best wishes

Peter

    If you cannot give a direct answer to whether or not there is a "physical" end to 'bracketing' on the large scale without my reading Truth-Function-Logic I will oblige when I get the time. But it looks to me a Yes or No answer can be given.

    Regards

    Akinbo

    Akinbo,

    TFL suggests 'No', but works perfectly in both cases. Even if you want to bring in a God you can do so. It's agnostic.

    But what's important is not only that it's the ONLY logical system that works universally but that it's the only kinetic system that can consistently resolve all the paradoxes surrounding SR; What can you falsify in this statement;

    "Light is re-emitted by each electron at c in that electrons centre of mass rest frame, and light thus changes speed to the local c on encountering all co-moving systems of 'matter'.

    I suggest that in the whole of science it's mainly initial unfamiliarity with newly encountered truths that prevents progress. That's how our neural networks operate; pattern matching'.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    PS There's a super little easy read book "Introducing Logic" By Cryan, Shatil and Mayblin. You can get one for less that 80 pence on 'Alibris'.

      You have "forced" me to read your Truth-Function-Logic and your 2012 essay again. I reply on the Faster than Light blog if you don't mind as I think it is more appropriate there. Or what do you think? I can repost here.

      Akinbo

      Concerning "a direct answer to whether or not there is a "physical" end to 'bracketing'" and "TFL suggests 'No', but works perfectly in both cases".

      It is a question of details since it works perfectly in both cases. However, in my preferred view, the answer is 'Yes'. On the smallest of scales, I suggest the extended geometric point, possibly of Planck size limit and on the large scale, the universe itself, finite in size but expanding. So smallest bracket - the point, largest bracket - the universe itself.

      Akinbo

      Akinbo,

      In which case you accept the hierarchy in between. I suggest you can't logically refute that in any case. If you don't accept anything larger than 'our universe' that's also fine. The important part is that anywhere in the hierarchy it's only the local 'next frame up' (bracket) that acts as the local datum for the limit 'c'.

      I've described how and why that is the only logical dynamic, which you haven't refuted and appear to have agreed. But I suggest you must then also accept the only possible logical consequences which are as I've described; The 'larger space 'S' is the same as any other space, so is the 'smaller space' in the larger context.

      Einstein's postulates (the only part of the theory consistently verified) then DO have a valid logic. Approaching the issue scientifically that is the only possible solution.

      The problem with changing paradigms is that the gatekeepers have all published papers saying 'A+B = F'. Proposing that A+B = C is then a unacceptable to them a priori. You've now fallen into the same trap. If we're to change paradigms we must all learn how to be more objective and abandon positions we've previously taken. (I did point out the flaw or 'incompleteness' of your view at the time!)

      Best of luck in that. It's hard, but I've done it many times. If you can't do it then you can't expect mainstream to do so.

      Peter

      Of course it is obvious I accept the hierarchy in between. Within each space the value of c varies. The value of c within the moon's local space and that within the earth's local space are not the same. This is why local space which you prefer to use has to be further refined. If you like you may say the value of c depends on the local content of each local space.

      Akinbo

      Akinbo,

      "the value of c varies". No, The hierarchy doesn't imply that at all. The value c is identical within all inertial systems. Each IS then entirely equivalent as logic anyway demands and as Galileo, Einstein's postulates and all empirical evidence. It's the DATUM condition K that varies, becoming K', K" etc.

      Look at it like this; We have a sealed laboratory on a ship. It measures the speed of a light pulse in a near-vacuum chamber to be precisely c. ALL such laboratories on all such ships will do so. Yet they may be 100 space ships going flat out on 100 different vectors. If we change observer frame to that of a background rest frame OUTSIDE the ships and look through the windows, all light pulses will APPEAR to be going at c+v or c-v.

      What you need to grasp and apply to overcome the apparent paradox is that the light reaching your eye is NOT the light pulse! That light is NOT VISIBLE! The light observed is that from the SEQUENCE of stationary particles in the vacuum chamber charged in turn by the pulse. That's why we see light from collimates quasar jets at apparent speeds many tines c. There is no paradox. It is the 'carrier medium' if you like that is also moving wrt the observer.

      If you'd also like the implications of the 're-emision at c' transition mechanism, here they are;

      Each transition between hierarchical interim rest frames ('discrete fields' - thus DFM) is equivalent, and each MUST then be a LOCAL 'CMBR rest frame'. That is indeed Galilean relativity, but when one frame is moving at near c through it's local background the blue shift at the TZ tends to min wavelength gamma, which is 'optical breakdown mode' electron density where the Lorentz factor well models the acceleration 'drop off' near c. The difference between Galilean and special relativity is only that 'drop off' approaching c.

      Peter

        I have replied on Cosmic Hologram . Let me use sound/air for analogy. Arrange your 100 space ships vertically at different altitudes. Is the velocity of sound the same in all the ships, given what we know of variation of air density with altitude? See the illustration I attached on Faster than light thread.

        Akinbo

        Akinbo,

        The bottom 3 ships sunk! The light down there then only went at 140,000miles/s.

        Actually this IS Cosmic Holograms, but I understand the confusion!

        I just answered that elsewhere, you're correct for bound gas, Not for plasma, but that makes no odds as the two effects are entirely independent. One a media constitution, the other a media relative state of motion.

        If you can hold those two and their effects separately in your mind prior to 2020 you're doing exceptionally well and beating the intellectual evolution of our species! It's like golf. It first needs constant practice for a while.

        Best wishes

        Peter

        3 years later
        • [deleted]

        " He mused that our universe is an image projected backwards in time from a hologram located at the boundary of the cosmos, in the infinite future."

        When physics research resorts to this kind of non-physics, we can only hope that crisis also means opportunity, for others who actually have a genuine interest in making progress, instead of wasting time and resources.

        Best, Koenraad

        Write a Reply...