Peter

The problem you have with this particular aspect of your theory is, essentially, twofold:

-everything is observer independent, not dependent, indeed physical existence occurs independently of any form of sensing

-it is irrelevant whether light travels at a constant speed, or apparently so, depending on what reference is chosen to calibrate its speed, in the sense that there is no issue to be resolved between rate of change (aka time) and speed of light. Einstein had no observational light. His second postulate as defined is irrelevant, because he did not deploy it as defined. His light was just a constant, used to calibrate distance and duration, it was not observational.

Paul

John,

I agree you're essentially correct, but that doesn't actually quite work (even in mainstream interpretation) because there's a major factor you're not considering; that c is a 'propagation' speed. i.e. a speed through a medium, which is always c LOCALLY wherever and whenever it's detected and speed measured.

That's all about speed being only a 'relative' concept. In this case it is relative to the local frame. Emission theory is wrong, and always inconsistent with observation, so the emitter frame cannot be used as a long distance propagation speed datum. Obviously any receiver may not exist until met, so only the medium itself can be relevant (this was Einstein's problem).

So then you have a decision. It it the medium 'stretching', or it it the emitter and receiver moving further apart 'through' the medium while the light is travelling!? Both are less problematic than 'no medium', but not devoid!

This is what the DFM resolves. The diffuse plasma (as found) consistently scatters all light to the local plasma's c (eventually). Near matter in motion the fermion conjugate pairs are condensed (ionized) locally BY the motion to implement the task (again EXACTLY as found!). What this means is that as space expands the propagation is continuously re-scattered to the new local c, so from our local rest frame here it will have gently 'changed speed', explaining the spectroscopic results obtained (and all the 'surfaces last scattered' of the CMB.

I know this may sound a little complex at first but it's actually dead simple, and is the ONLY mechanism that meets all observations and resolves all the paradoxes. The only rule is; "All local electrons emit photons at c." It's never been falsified. It just seems it's too 'different' to swallow for those steeped in ancient beliefs. (or too hard to understand).

Can you see the evolving dynamics?

Paul,

Neither of those points are problems. All physical existence does indeed occur independent of observers, but observers also have no access to any wavefunction state information prior to interaction (detection). i.e. They have no more data PRE-interaction than they'd have if they'd 'moved away' just before any signal arrived. Which of course is entirely intuitive.

It appears you may not fully grasp the underlying simplicity and dynamics of the theory. Hopefully the above explanation to John may also help explain.

Peter

Peter,

"It it the medium 'stretching', or it it the emitter and receiver moving further apart 'through' the medium while the light is travelling!"

The problem is the theory argues the first and assumes the later.

We are really only seeing this at one point in time, but the theory argues these distant galaxies will eventually disappear, as they become too far away for the light to travel. So they are therefore moving away relative to a constant speed of light, while it is argued "space itself" is expanding. If light "changes speed" ie , speeds up as the space is stretched, wouldn't they always be visible, since the speed of light would increase to match the expansion?

Not that this makes much sense, but it's not my theory. As I see it, space is flat, in both theory and observation, because intergalactic expansion is matched by galactic/gravitational contraction. It is just that the light from these distant sources can only reach us through the intergalactic "expanded" space.

What seems to be overlooked is that those intervening galaxies are not just inert points of reference, like raisins in the loaf, but "space sinks." We just can't compare what happens to all the light radiating from a source, to that little bit of stretched light that managed to travel all the way across the universe, as much of it is "compressed/absorbed" by those intervening entities. I think we overlook the wave side of the equation and think of the light as just point particles traveling for billions of years, but it is all entangled and what happens to what falls into the gravity wells is still a factor/balance to what travels much further.

Otherwise we have to explain inflation, dark energy, multiverses and all the other patches required to keep this model on life support.

John,

I entirely agree current theory is almost complete nonsense, including conserved photon particles. But within astronomy the situation is rather different and it's only 94% nonsense.

The problem is, as you say, that NONE of the accepted options can resolve the nonsense and explain the spectroscopy. Unfortunately your suggestion also doesn't! If you really want to understand it check this out, then follow the link to the papers and look at the relevant ones. Plank findings. But there are some horrific errors and disagreement in the ranks! You'll find that for redshift they considered NO other fundamntally different assumptions, so no wonder the paradoxes remained.

I'n not sure you understood the DFM model, which works consistently. m the light does NOT speed up. but is consistently scattered to c locally on meeting all matter, including the galaxy haloes it passes through. Its like finally getting a jigsaw puzzle right. There is no argument. It's the only way it could be! Tell me if there are any parts you don't understand.

The logical explanations for (much reduced inflation and dark energy emerge. it's only those two that are NOT patches! The others are 10 thick. I'll explain how both emerge consistently, intuitively and with real proof if you wish.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

I do have some sense of the DFM model and how it contextually deals with C. You did add the comment "change speed," in reference to different fields and I sort of ran with it. I realize the thumbnail sketch I gave there had more to do with using various analogies used to describe geometric spacetime, rather than underlaying physics. I have to say though, that the whole discipline seems so lost in detail, there is a seemingly garbled general understanding of how it all came to be.

As I first read it, decades ago, Einstein surmised that the curvature of space known as gravity causes space to collapse and to keep a stable universe, added the cosmological constant. Yet he dropped the idea when learning Hubble discovered redshift! It seemed to me that would be evidence of the cosmological constant! Galaxies draw the measure of space, ie. mass points in. The space in between them expands. This balances. The overall universe appears flat. It's not like I'm trying to add anything, it just seems the most basic reading of the evidence doesn't need the entire universe expanding from a point and needing inflation and dark energy to fill in the enormous gaps. Rather it is just a basic cycle of expanding energy and collapsing mass. Nothing more than cosmic fluctuations on an infinite scale.

So then what is causing redshift and how does it relate to the cosmological expansion. As I see it, it would be a property of light expanding to fill ever greater volume with distance and that would seem a consequence of wave properties. No one has actually tested what happens to light over quatrillions of miles and none have been seemingly willing to risk their careers thinking about it.

So now we have multiverses and outsiders are starting to have their suspicions things are not quite right.

Peter

Your explanation to John only helps to highlight where the problems are.

Einstein does not have any observational light, so there is no issue about rate of change and light speed consistency to be resolved in the first place. In other words, how light works is obviously important, per se, but has no relevance to the fault in relativity.

On your specific point, obviously an observer has no access to any information before they have observed! That was not my point, which was that observing can only involve the identification of something which has already occurred, and in doing so had a definitive state. That is, observation cannot affect the physical circumstance, neither is that circumstance indefinite.

Paul

Hi Peter,

Very thought provoking essay. Many comments have already been made to which you have ably answered. I wont repeat those.

RE: In many ways the theme still boils down to the same old question asked in many ways, viz. One or Many, Discrete or Continuous, Yes or No, 0 or 1? Part of what I got from your essay is that we should make room for DUALITY, MAYBE, BOTH, ALL IN BETWEEN in our answers, i.e. (0,1), the 'Excluded Middle'.

While perfectly agreeing with that proposal, for completeness how this is implemented must be put forward AT THE SAME TIME you give your included/reducing middle answer. E.g. can Schrodinger's cat actually be BOTH dead and alive and be in THE MIDDLE at the final state?

If you recall in my essay I proposed how the duality of discrete and continuous space is implemented. Space is continuous, since the discrete units of its expression cannot again have a 'space' or 'separation' between them. At the same time, it is discrete because it is not infinitely divisible and moreover the discrete units can undergo emergence and annihilation. Thus the 'separation' is "time" not "space".

RE: "no two physical entities are identical. Even cases of numerous similar entities where set quantifiers such as heap, or field are essential no two may be identical".

Even if identical in ALL qualities no two things can occupy the SAME position.

RE: Difficult to visualize, sample space needs explanations and examples to reveal it's full power.

How are points, lines, surfaces and bodies defined in this sample space? That is, does a line have length and its breadth is zero, or does a surface have breadth and width but of zero thickness? Compare with Euclid's definitions.

RE: Light speed...

I have commented on light speed on your blog for last year's essay. I can comment more here if you wish since I may not be going over to last year's blog soon.

RE: The Einstein Podolski Rosen (EPR) Paradox

EPR paradox is an ailment afflicting only the particle view of light where there is no medium. It is absent in the transverse wave picture of light. There is no quantum jumping or superluminal signalling. When you measure the plane of polarization of one wave, you can infer that of the other. As to what the medium is, like Newton would say "I have calculated it but leave the joy of discovery to others". Neither will I show you the calculations because I cant find them!!

Cheerio,

Akinbo

Paul,

I and the model have no issue with any of your comments. I'm not then certain what you mean by "where the problems are". Perhaps if you think there are problems in the model itself you might be specific about where. But if you refer to the current paradigm I have only one quibble.

You suggest "how light works is obviously important, per se, but has no relevance to the fault in relativity." I have described the proposition that the assumption that the characteristic 'absolute' (one only) is tied to the concept of 'background frames' which Einstein assumed in deriving the Relativity of Simultaneity underpinning SR, is false. This is clearly the case as we have confirmed for instance that light on Mars does c wrt Mars not c wrt Earth! It has not however been assimilated so is 'swept under the carpet' with all the other inconsistent facts!

Now as this is at least indirectly about how, or 'THAT' light 'propagates' at c. so at c in the LOCAL background, than we could say it IS relevant to that particular fault in relativity. When corrected we find that the quantum mechanism of propagation (atomic scattering at c) actually PRODUCES the relativistic' effects directly!! I clearly couldn't then be classed as 'irrelevant'.

Now I can agree it has less DIRECT relevance, and that there are other faults, but to say it is irrelevant is to potentially miss the critically important matter of the assumption used for the Rel of Simultaneity. It is important to highlight that point as almost all have missed it, as if some intellectual block is implanted in their brains, so the confusion remains. I know you'd grasped it previously, but with so many it 'slips away' easily amid the ('garbled' as John says) confusion of current beliefs.

To see grasp and retain the simplicity hiding in the pile of confusion is not easy.

I've now first read your essay, improved from last year, and will comment soon.

best wishes

Peter

Akinbo,

Thanks for your positive comments. We have much common understanding.

The cat was certainly alive but is now long dead. However the expanding Schrodinger 'spheres' show that there IS also a valid analogy for 'potential' at any point in space and time. Like the members of a sports team, only having 'potential' at home, but when they all meet they become an 'entity' with power.

I refer to the NLS equation spread function as a coherent particle evolving into just waves (as the team drift away from the bar?). So I agree, time is key.

The Excluded Middle is the additional parametrisation of the smaller 'subset' between 0,1. Believing only 0 or 1 can exist hides that information. considered as red or green, the 'redness' and 'greenness' (or energy) can vary. So if we only ask 'red' or 'green'? we can never find the subtleties of nature.

I also agree mutual exclusion of 'position', as Boscovitch, Descartes and Einstein! Lines and points do not 'exist' in ANY subset of 'sample space', which merely parametrised 'how red? etc. In fact I've shown that the Cartesian co-ordinate system cannot model motion! (but not here due to space ..etc!)

I agree the plane of polarization solution but show it can also be applied to Schrodinger's coherent distinguishable wave packet; 'particles' more subtly, due to the 'transverse COMPONENT' existing, because that allows the orbital angular momentum we know they hold.

I'll check over on last years bog when I get a moment.

Best wishes

Peter

    Peter

    You start by asserting that you have "no issue with any of your comments", then go on to say something which, as I have already said, is contrary to what I am saying.

    1 The essential problem with your theory is that if one reduces the reference against which speed is being calibrated to a singular circumstance, ie each frame, then given the way light propagates, the resulting relative speed will always be the same. This is self-evident, but also fails to address comparability of references, because you are using a different one on each occasion. It is the same form of circumstance, but physically a different circumstance.

    What matters here, is the speed, ie duration incurred, for light to travel from A to B. Light being that physical effect which if received, the eye can process. Light is just a physical entity, which, as a result of the evolution of sight, has acquired a functional role as a physically existent, independent representation of what occurred. Leaving aside how, given its physical properties, proficient it is at fulfilling that role, its travel is affected by the physical circumstances it travels in.

    2 Leaving aside the correctness of your argument, it has no impact on relativity. Immediately you speak of SR, which as I have pointed out so many times, with quotes from the man himself, is not what you are saying it is. However, leaving that aside and just considering the concept of relativity. The point is that there is no observational light in Einstein. The second postulate, and hence the possible contradiction, is irrelevant. Einstein just used a constant to calibrate distance and duration. It could have been anything. It was not observational light, nobody observes anything in Einstien's writings. There is a 'ray of light', later it is lightening. In Cox & Forshaw it is a light beam clock. c is just a constant. In other words, the attempt to resolve rate of change and light speed constancy is a wild goose chase, the issue was never there. The so-called paradoxes do not exist. Because the man spoke of observers, etc, people have been assuming they were, and that it is all about light. But there was no light.

    Einstein did not make any presumptions about background frames, this is your interpretation of what he did. He made two fundamental, and counterbalancing , mistakes;

    -he failed to understand how timing operates

    -he did not differentiate between what occurs, and the light representation thereof

    There is no relativistic effect in existence, it occurs at a specific time in a specific physical state. The point is that light representations of that then travel and are received at different times depending on spatial relationships. The relativity which he attributed to existence (in effect, he did not mean to) is in the receipt of light.

    Paul

    Peter,

    I've had a chance to reread your essay. As always, you're impressive! And, you old yachtsman, you are always obsessed with waves!

    You suggest that far greater information capacity exists in areas not yet fully searched. Let's hope you're right. You then discuss the "orbital angular momentum" (OAM) of photons. I've collected several articles on this phenomenon but have not yet had time to study them. I am therefore somewhat confused about OAM so I can't reasonably judge statements about it.

    You discuss the 'law of the excluded middle'. One of the first standards for integrated circuits (TTL) was based on this concept in that proper designs guaranteed either high or low outputs but not outputs in the 'forbidden zone', or excluded middle. These outputs were of course fed into the input of the following stage, which had a smaller excluded middle, thus providing reasonable noise immunity.

    You note that QM's nonzero statistical amplitude distribution cannot offer any hint about underlying mechanics or meaning. You also point out that Born had no physical explanation for squaring the wave function. I would note here that my previous essay (The Nature of the Wave Function) does offer a physical explanation for this!

    I also agree with your interpretation for approximating nature with increasing precision, and particularly like your suggestion of Bayesian analysis as a "law of the reducing middle", but I'm somewhat confused by your discussion of 'natural universe' followed by 'infinite universe'. I am more and more coming to distrust any argument framed in terms of the 'infinite'.

    I do like your remark about the observer's rest frame being the rest frame of the channel to the processor. I know you've spent so much time thinking about Doppler shifts that my inclination is simply to take your word for anything to do with them. I don't follow all of your remarks in that section but I do note that your helical wave is compatible with the C-field wave function mentioned above. And my toroidal model of the electron does possess a closed form 'helical' soliton-nature.

    Your axioms are reasonable although as I said I don't put much faith in 'infinite' arguments.

    As for Bell's so-called 'proof' that no locally real model can produce the cosine squared result, I produce it in my previous essay (link above). Joy has complained that it only works when Alice and Bob make independent selections, but I believe that is implied by Bell's formulation. I'm communicating with MJW Hall who specializes in determining the limiting cases implied by Bell assumptions. So I need to study your EPR discussion more before I form an opinion about it, although I am favorably disposed to your argument that there is a mismatch between statistics and 'real physical interactions' at each detector. I plan to study your approach further.

    To sum up, your essay, like my essays, requires more than one or two readings to comprehend. Too bad most people (for obvious reasons) will only read once.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Paul,

    Yes I recall you suggesting that interpretation before. It's probably my fault calling his rejected 'ether' frame a 'background' frame, a word he didn't use. It's then a concept that's easy to miss, and often is.

    In fact he spoke and agonised of little else about SR from 1905 right up to his last paper. It may be characterised at the 'preferred 3rd frame', and is the foundation of the 'Relativity of Simultaneity'. It was a key part of his SR addresses and papers, inc. 1905, 1921, 1922, 1923, and right on till 1955.

    i.e. In the Gothenberg speech he referred to it as; "...the preference for a single state of motion as in the case of the theory of light with a stationary ether,"

    In his 1954 space s in motion with space S, space S of course then DID need such a 'state of motion'. It is these '3rd frames' to which I refer.

    But he 'threw out the baby with the bathwater' in assuming that any background frame HAD to be a single "absolute" background frame. It clearly does not. The Earth's ('rotating') rest frame is clearly the background frame for ALL moving trains! and the Sun's heliospheric rest frame is clearly the background frame for all (non rotating) planetary ionosphere's, in the solar system not just Earth's.

    There is then a 'hierachy' of inertial systems (frames). he realised this himself; "There are then an infinite number of inertial frames which are in uniform translational motion relative to each other" (background after background ad infinitum) but couldn't rationalise it physically.

    Einstein had a good excuse, he did not know of the QV. It's only been inadequate intellect that's prevented better understanding by mainstream science space exploration!

    So you can see, that it's only (as we all showed last year) using the wrong 'starting assumptions' and poor thinking that causes theoretical confusion!

    Without that realisation I quite see how you thought my proposition had a problem. It would indeed have had! I hope the logical (TFL) hierarchical dynamic is something of a revelation. But don't expect to understand it fully without initial effort. Only the most brilliant seem able to do.

    Edwin,

    Great, thanks. Someone suggested the water in waves doesn't move. It does. It follows a slightly elliptical helical path (producing 'longshore drift' when they break), moving forward a little with each rotation. i.e. each molecule describes a helix, and has the power of orbital angular momentum. I agree this is analogous to your thesis.

    Ref infinities; All the model does is FREE's mathematics of infinities. It does not 'rely' on infinities in any way, just removes their paradox and leaves them in the class of 'not understood'. We may still however trivially but logically say that if the universe is infinite then anything that can happen will happen.

    The important thing is to recognise that between any two integers there is always a 'subset' of parametrizable possibilities, described by quantum uncertainty. i.e. Many red and green lights may also each have a distribution of intensity. That is then what Bell missed. He only asked; 'red or green'? If he went to each flash and recorded intensity, he's also find the Bayesian distribution. I think Joy may have have a point about your finding last year, but this now shows that whatever Bob and Alice do the cosine curve will be found both at each of them and in the correlation.

    I'm smartening up a draft paper on the mechanism of the LT derivation and will send you a link.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Peter

    "It's probably my fault calling his rejected 'ether' frame a 'background' frame..."

    It does not matter about a correlation between what was said. The point is, as light works in a fundamental way, then if one calibrates its speed with respect to some individualistic frame on each occasion, then the same answer will result. But this is not the speed of observational light. That is a function of the duration incurred from its creation, as the result of an interaction with whatever occurred, to its receipt by anything (but it has to be a sentient organism which can indicate in some way that reception has occurred!).

    "about SR from 1905"

    Really? When was the first time he mentioned SR? Not that it matters because in 1916 he defined it, and it is different from what was said in 1905. Fundamentally in 1905 he has two states of existence. Light is in vacuo. Everything else is not, because there is length alteration (ie some force is operational). This is why he recognises a potential conflict between the two postulates ("apparently irreconcilable"), and is so concerned with states of inertia. One cannot have a theory where two different 'elements' are in different states of 'being'. So as far as he was concerned, SR resolved this. In SR there is no force at all, in GR there is.

    And it is not what he said, intended to do, or thought he did, that matters. That is what he actually did. And he failed to understand how timing worked (which resulted in a superfluous layer thereof) and conflated reality and the light reality (which resulted in him losing a layer of timing). The nearest he got to acknowledging a differentiation was when speaking of "immediate proximity", when he said the times would be the same, which they are not. He can speak of frames of reference , observers, etc, but they do not exist if there is no observational light. Nobody receives that ray of light, and I would certainly not sugget trying to see with lightening!

    The point being that this holy grail of trying to resolve rate of change and light speed does not exist, because he never had any light in the first place. All he does is use a constant to calibrate duration and distance. And it happens to be the speed of light. Obviously, he and all the interpretations since, believe this accounts for observation, but it does not. In effect, the difference in the timing of the receipt of light has been shifted to a characteristic of reality itself. This is his best statement on the nature of relativity (forget SR, that is a red herring):

    Einstein para 4 section 9 1916

    "Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, ie that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in section 7) disappears".

    This is rubbish. Events are events, they occur at a time, and at one time only. They do not occur wrt some other event. What does happen is that the timing of receipt of light varies depending on spatial relationships, and if there is relative movement then the apparent rate of change will appear to alter for the recipient from that which occurs.

    Paul

    Hi Peter,

    Good to see you participating in this contest also!

    I finally had time to reread your essay. And my original impression has not changed: you did much interesting work but, as probably you yourself already know, the essay would have benefited tremendously from the expository editorial improvement.

    Just to take one example, the first sentence of the conclusion:

    "An intelligent IQbit with new helical/toroidal freedoms is found hidden in a Sample Space of hierarchical subsets, and an Included Middle between binary 0 and 1, including [math]\Psi^2[/math]".

    I'm a mathematician by education but who knows what the "Sample Space of hierarchical subsets, and an Included Middle between binary 0 and 1, including [math]\Psi^2[/math]" is? ;-)

    Now let me move on to your questions in my essay forum.

    1. "to hear your views on my suggested division line (proposed by Dirac) between real physical nature and that of numerism."

    I assume you refer to this in your essay:

    "Dirac's Line then more clearly divides Proper Time (unchanged) from apparent co-ordinate time xi"

    I had to go to the reference xi you supplied and found:

    "if we add two more time variables t(subscript theta), t(subscript phi) as the quantum hidden variables, i.e., 3-dimensional time (t, t(subscript theta), t(subscript phi) ) instead of 1 dimension, we'll find that the motion of single particle under 3+3 time-space posseses the same qualitative behavior as the particle in quantum physics and the spin of particle can be simply interpreted as the topological property of 3-dimensional time."

    I'm sympathetic to a more sophisticated view of time, but I'm very skeptical of approaching time via spatially motivated "dimensions". As you might have seen in my essay, in ETS, the idea of time is treated as embedded in the struct. So I believe that time, as you yourself say, is embedded in "change" and is not a numeric concept.

    2. "I've also tackled measurement as a real interaction, trying to define 'detection' as a separate prior interaction and would welcome your views."

    Again, I am of the opinion that any interaction is of the structural nature and cannot be adequately addressed in the conventional numeric framework.

    3. "I end up offering a 'real' resolution of the EPR paradox so also saw analogies with your last figure. There is 'hidden information' which i have actually found researching Aspects discarded 'anomalous' data!"

    Peter, I couldn't figure out what your "resolution" is, but our two approaches to entanglement cannot be that similar, because I'm advocating a *primary* informational reality that 'specifies' the spatial reality.

    So, to put it mildly, I'm not the best person at all to comment on your essay, but I wish you good luck in the contest, and most importantly, interesting discussions!

    Lev,

    You're right. I tried to squeeze too much in again! But I did indeed identify the wavefunction 'psi' twice in the essay, and refer to and explain Born's rule of squaring the wavefunction;('psi'^2)!

    I'm confused that you ask if I referred to it. Did you only read the conclusions?

    Then, on the "Dirac Line", I not only discussed it at length in the text but also gave the full Dirac quote!! again you seem to only refer to the conclusions, but say at the top you read the essay! The conclusions can't and are not supposed to be a repeat of the whole essay! So I really can't grasp whether you read the text or not, so don't understand your comment.

    I can see the Chen paper is a bit advanced for some non physicists, (though I'm strictly included in that group) but had to remove the simple definition due to space. This may indeed be seen as a single 'Proper Time' embedded in each of your 'structs' which may in that way be analogues to 'inertial systems'. I then propose only the emitted ARTIFACTS can be changed, (i.e. Doppler shifted) not 'time' itself. But the "change" is then to the 'apparent' time seen as being from from the OTHER frames clock thus an arbitrary 'co-ordinate time' subject to observer motion. This is a quite new insight.

    MEASUREMENT. I'm talking 'optical science' rather than 'theory'. But saw no reason your structs could not be valid.

    EPR SOLUTION. I suppose you won't see the solution without a full understanding of the Bell Inequalities themselves and von Neumann's proposal, which I do describe; (a cosine curve AT EACH detector, not just from statistical correlations between them.

    Malus' Law simplified says if two donuts meet face to face, then tilting one gives a different contact point round the ring. So if a third donut is at a known angle relative to the first, a relationship can be described subject to that angle. It's a bit more complex, so difficult to precisely explain, but this had not been considered before, so the evidence had been discarded.

    It does however seem it's beyond many physicists too! Hey ho.

    Best of luck anyway,

    Peter

      Peter,

      "I'm confused that you ask if I referred to it."

      I didn't.

      "again you seem to only refer to the conclusions,"

      Peter, the reference I gave is to pp. 2(bottom)-3 of your essay and not to the conclusion, but you were probably also referring to his quote on p.2.

      So I still think that "the essay would have benefited tremendously from the expository editorial improvement".

      ------------------------------------------

      Peter, what I found quite useful is a very careful and intensive development of the paper plan/outline, in which the main points are flashed out and very carefully logically *coordinated* wrt each other. Most people don't like doing it but I find such dry/mental run of the basic ideas involved and their interconnections super helpful.

      My best wishes to you!

      Hello Peter,

      I have browsed your viXra paper. Will be reading it in more detail later because there is much to learn from it. For example I had proposed testing SR by LLR in 2009 (see here) and I am gratified that one such experiment has been done which I came across in your references. I have also explored (here)whether dark matter could be the earth bound luminiferous medium. I will be comparing this with your Discrete Spaces.

      Many thanks indeed,

      Akinbo

      *I just wonder why experiments contradicting LLI are covered up. But it's all a matter of time.