Alternative Models of Reality

Tom,

I'm not even sure which statement you are referring to and if every speculative statement has to pass a true/false test immediately, where does that leave science? Weren't you the one who was just castigating me for being so judgmental about things like multiverses?

So its more of a scalar system. We do tend to use terms like "pressure" and "hot/cold" to refer to how we feel. Time is the linear, sequential function.

Regards,

John M

Zeeya,

It did leave me timed in for at least an hour, earlier, but then I was logged out for switching the page.

Regards,

John M

Also I was getting an edit button for a few weeks, but now it's gone. JM

John, you don't remember what you said just yesterday? -- how is it even possible to have a meaningful dialogue with anyone? That doesn't bother you? Here is your statement:

"... eye color is only an analogy for all possible information."

There is a saying among statisticians: "Stand with one foot in the fire and another in a bucket of ice, and on the average you'll be comfortable." (yes, of course, it's a joke.) You're saying. "Stand long enough in a crowd of people of different eye colors, and you'll have no eye color at all."

Convince me that's rational.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

I was referring to the information storage capacity of the average human mind. (and when it comes to remembering details, mine is slightly below average.)

Unless you happen to be a complete foodie, or have an exceptionally photographic mind, can you remember what you had for lunch 7, 8, 9, and 10 days ago, or does it start to run together?

Generally our minds are designed to erase otherwise useless information, because it provides to survival benefit.

We recycle the effects of time.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

It was the engine that came first, powered by logic. The problem is that all only know horses so keep insisting it should look like a horse or be dismissed, so it's dismissed.

The simple transition equation from my last essay is here, reducing to c = c'.

For receding observers; (wavelength=L, speed =u)) Lc = Lc-u (1 - u/c)^-1 and observed light speed then is;

f'L' = {f (1 - v/c)} {L(1 - u/c)^-1} = f L = c. ..(all subject to gamma).

As wave equations are invariant on transformation in Euclidean space the (unobserved) incident and scattered wave are simply;

y = yo sin 2pi(f t 1/L x) and y' = y'o sin 2pi(f't' 1/L'x') [gamma].

The fuller description is in the 'Much Ado..' 2012 essay, plus other cases in the appendix (and a separate quantum mechanism deriving gamma itself in another paper). But now consider the real scalar property here; wavelength, and look at the Planck spectroscopic distributions group, which is NOT Doppler-shift invariant!

If we use the medium to medium Doppler shift equation when considering measurement by a lens it all comes out making logical sense. The confusion now is that we're so used to using frequency, and assume we're measuring something before we interact with it, that all we can ever see are horses and camels! That's where we need to look further than present ingrained beliefs and maths, and that's what I'm trying to work out how to enable. All help is welcome.

If you now re-read the middle of this years essay again the 'elephant in the room' should emerge. But it needs to be focussed on, don't let it escape!

There are a few other derivations in my last two essays but that's about the limit on my maths. When the engine was first conceived and invented it didn't arise from maths, or even need any. Advances in scientific understanding can't arise from maths, as Einstein so often pointed out and Wheeler also said ('never do maths before you know the answer'). My skills lie elsewhere, I'm afraid I can't also jump through hoops on horses. The mathematicians are the experts and are very welcome to do the relevant maths!

What I've found is equivalent to the Rubic Cube solution. It's self apparently correct and I know how to get there, but the assumptions used aren't what others use or expect. My skills don't also extend to do all but the basic maths, but that doesn't make any red squares turn white! If you're any good, be my guest. I wish someone would (or point out any colours out of place so I can get back to sailing).

Best wishes

Peter

Peter WM,

The most recent essay with the logic is in 2nd pos'n. here;

THE INTELLIGENT BIT.' and yes, of course maths can provide useful approximations, but all the confusion, paradox and inconsistency emerges from the gap and looms large, so we should stop ignoring it!

The inconsistencies can be reduced in stage by recursive quantum guages, though they'll never disappear. Nature will always retain some uncertainty ('non-linearity'). We don't need to chase this down with sophisticated mathematics but must understand it conceptually, as both Einstein and Wheeler said.

No, it's not clear to me; "how the kind of non-linearity I introduce in the paper I attached above is careful to avoid that issue?" I have re-derived 'QFT' from 1st principles to produce quantized gravity so have 'unlearned' almost all the QFT I studied. If you read my last 3 essays you'll see how it's reconstructed in a unified fashion, apparently producing SR (without the paradoxes) direct from a QM. It appeared your maths led to the same exit from the forest, but I don't speak that language (I studied it but also had to unlearn it!). Mine is English so you may better follow it, do let me know. (see also my post to Tom with the limit of my current maths below.)

Best wishes

Peter

Peter, your assumption that the speed of light is not independent of medium and observer speed violates special relativity. I have no reason to accept that assumption and every reason to reject it.

Best,

Tom

Peter and all,

Maybe Bee Hossenfelder's plain language explanation of relativity's essentials can clear up some mistaken impressions.

Tom

" ... can you remember what you had for lunch 7, 8, 9, and 10 days ago ..."

No, but I can remember what color my eyes are.

Tom

Tom,

I agree Sabine's explanation is nice and simple, though she also disagreed with; "one should respect the traditional view spelled out in the best textbooks..." which is what I explain as 'only seeing horses'! I agree an 'engine' obviously can't be a 'shoe in' assumption as it violates equestrian principles.

The proposed coherent vehicle therefore has to show that it can recover all the "proven" bits of SR, which are essentially contained in the postulates, but shedding all the apparent issues which Pentcho so enjoys reminding us of. Also doing so consistently with the quanta is then, as Penrose said, the Holy Grail! It started as far less 'ambitious' and I'd have preferred it to stay that way, but it is what it is.

I also here point out that it does NOT in fact "violate SR" itself. After a lifetime of analysis Einstein concluded and went to great pains to confirm in his definitive 1952 paper that "SR is entirely contained within the postulates". That means that the attached assumptions and interpretations are NOT SR! They are just that. Assumptions and interpretations, and it is just the odd one of those which is challenged; which is an assumption for the Relativity of Simultaneity that "no absolute frame" also HAD to mean; "no background frame at all!!" Einstein found this himself in 1952 with his "space 's' moving within larger space 'S'." (Remember the postulates always specified "propagation" speed!)

So we simply postulate and try to falsify that we always have 'A' background frame locally, but it is only one of infinitely many hierarchical frames. i.e. all planets have a different background atmospheric frame, and light does c wrt each of those LOCALLY, not to some single ether or 'absolute' frame. The same then will all media, including that of lenses. I suggest only that we can't 'measure' light until it arrives and has interacted. (The observer then IS part of the system!). Could we measure it otherwise? except via OTHER light also doing c locally. The logic follows the exact hierarchical system of truth functional and quantum logic; only the 'adjacent' frame is directly relevant. All issues then melt away when logically addressed.

But this is where the high intellect and ability to 'imagine' life beyond a horse is needed. The mind works and 'falsifies' by pattern matching. There is no 'ready made' pattern there yet, you have to conceive and visualise it.

But even more important is the empirical evidence, which as you say correspondence with is key. The assumptions you 'assumed' were part of SR fail to rationalise the confirmed apparent superluminal motion of quasar jet pulses. The science of collimation is very well established, including by the UK's Royal astronomer, and frankly simply ignores the inconsistent SR 'interpretation' of theorists (I assume you read the links I posted). Now we also have the Very Large Baseline Array on line. It's just confirmed another finding falsifying the assumptions most confuse with the theory itself; Light path curvature in space by diffraction in a moving 'cloud' of plasma (what we call 'gravitational lensing'). I already gave you the previous list of 20 or so similar 'anomalous' findings NOT explained by past assumptions that ARE explained by the slight change of assumption to dependence on locality.

I appreciate the fundamental shock for those in whom the beliefs are most ingrained. I just need advice on how to minimise it!

Peter

John,

Yes, to always a local background. But remember that all 'frames' are REAL spaces, so it is ONLY that 'next up' LOCAL background system that has any relevance to propagation speed.

The jet plane in our atmosphere cares not a jot about how fast Earth is moving round the sun, or the sun is moving through the galaxy, or the galaxy within the local group etc etc. How could logic ever suggest anything else anyway?

If the Mars Rover does max 30mph, would you expect that to be 30mph with respect to yourself? (whether at home or on a train), or wrt Saturn?, or our spiral arm?? or wrt our local group of galaxies? If EM signals do c in her optical waveguide systems, is that c wrt you?, or wrt the systems own local rest frame.

All I'm saying is that, though I know you and all others may think I'm crazy, it is 30mph wrt the surface of Mars, and then c wrt the local optical waveguide medium. To me it's all the other assumptions that are a bit arrogant and possibly crazy!

The only implication is that light changes speed at the frame ('domain') limits by being absorbed by the shock plasma, then re-emitted to the new local c. That is the simplest bit, just like sound, giving the Doppler shifts we find.

There will of course be some 'ultimate' rest frame for the universe, but I suggest it can have no relevance for propagation speed c within any of the many the systems in the systems in the systems within it. So your horse is only ever galloping at one valid speed!

Peter

Peter,

" ... but shedding all the apparent issues which Pentcho so enjoys reminding us of."

Pentcho's nonsense is complete bollocks and a tragic waste of bandwidth. Just to pick a random recent example: "Einsteinians universally teach that a light source moving towards the observer sends a shorter wavelength than a stationary light source." Einsteinians, as opposed to Valevians, actually teach that light speed is independent of the motion of the observer, and that there is no stationary light source because all motion is relative.

Let me try another approach with you, Peter: You say that your results are compatible with Joy Christian's. Joy, of course, is not an anti-relativist, and he states the core of his framework quite straightforwardly: "Every quantum mechanical correlation can be understood as a classical, local-realistic correlation among a set of points of a parallelized 7-sphere ..."

The words are precise and carefully chosen, and they form the "engine" of his research program. Even if one doesn't understand what a parallelized 7-sphere is, even if one disputes what is meant by "local-realistic," and even if one doesn't recognize a "set of points" in any context except 3-dimensional Euclidean space -- if one knows any physics at all, one certainly understands what "classical" "quantum" and "correlation" mean.

That's *all* I'm asking of you: just a simple statement or a theorem around which your program is built.

And please be aware of problems you put forward that are already solved, such as " ... an assumption for the Relativity of Simultaneity that 'no absolute frame' also HAD to mean; 'no background frame at all!!'"

Correct. That's why general relativity can be formulated with coordinate-free geometry and why you don't need all those capital letters and exclamation points.

"Einstein found this himself in 1952 with his 'space 's' moving within larger space 'S'.' (Remember the postulates always specified 'propagation' speed!).

Also correct without the exclamation. The speed at which light is propagated is always the speed of light, regardless of physical conditions. We wouldn't know this, however, given that all motion is relative, without the formal map s --> S.

If you don't accept all the conclusions of special relativity, you don't accept the theory at all. You do or you don't, and that's all there is to it. If the anomalies you address violate relativity, then relativity is falsified -- more likely, though, the anomalies are poorly understood, which is why they are anomalies in the first place.

Best,

Tom

Peter,

Isn't C the speed of light in a vacuum? Meaning that, yes, it potentially travels slower in various other mediums and under different conditions, such as in a frame that is also moving. The caveat being that any clock in that frame is also affected. So yes, you are measuring it in its own frame, with a clock in that frame, and if with a clock outside the particular frame, transmission factors also apply.

The point that gets to me, is that "in a vacuum." What is a vacuum, other than just space? So what if different clocks measure different rates, because they are explicitly a measure of action; atomic, photonic, horses, rovers, whatever. There is no need for a dimension of time. It is a measure of the effects coming into being and dissolving, like waves hitting the beach. The reason there is this concept of simultaneity is because everything that happens can only happen as it is physically present, yet trying to correlate how they are all connected is complicated and since time itself is just the rate things occur, there is no giant cosmic clock on the wall to relate everything that happens.

That's why I think differentiating between the vector of past to future, as opposed to this just coming into being and fading, ie, future becoming past, is so important. If you think of time as that giant cosmic clock, then relativity does seem crazy, like funhouse mirrors. On the other hand, if you only see stuff happening, it makes perfect sense that some stuff happens faster than other stuff.

Tom,

Does this mean you accept that the amount we can know is extremely finite?

If so, apologies accepted.

Regards,

John M

"Does this mean you accept that the amount we can know is extremely finite?"

No, of course not. What you mean by "we" I assume is a finite population at a given time. I don't know that that can be said of the aggregated knowledge of a population approaching infinity in the far future -- in which case what "we" can know is certainly not "extremely finite."

All which has absolutely nothing to do with your statement that all human eyes in any population at any time are the same blurry color -- understand my frustration?

Best,

Tom

John,

"The point that gets to me, is that "in a vacuum." What is a vacuum, other than just space?"

I think we're now going round in pointless circles John.

We'e long established the local 'vacuum frame' which is the datum for motion and maximum speed of any entity within it. it can be formed by ether if you like ether, or simply by the rest frame of the 'absorber' particles we know and have found there (at

Tom,

Hmmm. Interesting. There's a well known saying that you'll never convince anyone of anything different to what they believe with facts, but you may with a good story. It seems I'd need a good story.

It's also clear we're not communicationg. You ask me to explain, so I don, but you then ignore what I say (the statement, which Einstein finally reverted to; "Special Relativity is entirely contained within the postulates") but you ignore it and just make a slightly insulting assumption that I don't understand the present interpretation of SR!

My statement and point was that the 'add on' to the postulates (which Einstein was declaring as 'in question' in 1952), the assumption for the Relativity of Simultaneity that 'no absolute frame' also HAD to mean; 'no background frame at all'" was what I stated as being challenged. Yes of course I know that's what's assumed in SR, why would I challenge it if it were not?

Now rather than just revert back to 'no it can't work as it's not a hose' which is what you did, the scientific method says that the statement should be properly falsified, and by findings not by other assumptions! (i.e. of GR, which incidentally requires a background frame, as Einstein recognised and stated more an once).

You say "If you don't accept all the conclusions of special relativity, you don't accept the theory at all." Now that is total bollocks! SR has no "conclusions" just interpretations. I'm with Einstein all the way, as I've found and can show, if anyone will look, that it's the 'add on' bits that made it nonsense. I accept all the postulates and all the evidence, that does NOT require me to accept all the explanations (horses and camels) as I've found a quantum engine to make it work without paradox.

I'll think about other possible statements, but as they'll all depart somewhat from the exact system of current beliefs it seems you'll only keep complaining that engines can't exist!

peter