Alternative Models of Reality

Hi Tom,

That was me.

Akinbo

Tom,

I realize I'm the only one asking it. Everyone else is only concerned with how to measure time, not what it is. It's like everyone is concerned with how best to fit the gears of the clockwork cosmos together, not whether gears are the best solution to the sun and all the planets and stars spinning around us, in the first place.

Is there some underlaying property called time, or is it only a measure of changing form? Until that can be settled, simply measuring change tells you nothing more than what is faster and what is slower.

Regards,

John M

I would like to say something about the Spacetime Wave theory treatment of the property charge.

What is the cause of the property charge? We can measure electrostatic charge in the laboratory by measuring the associated electrostatic force. In our consideration of the cause of fundamental forces we were looking for an explanation as to why the energy level for two electrons in close proximity is higher than if they were moved apart.

The Spacetime Wave theory describes an electron as a looped wave in the medium of spacetime. We can think of a looped wave in space where the progression of the space curvature in the loop leads to local compression and expansion of the medium. Then superimpose on this a variation in the geometry of the time dimension with the same frequency and in phase with the space geometry wave. The effect will be that the compression phase and expansion phase of the space wave will not be symmetrical (because of the difference in time due to the variation in the rate of passage of time) so that the effect will be a general expansion of space in the vicinity of the electron. So two electrons will repel each other because the expanded space associated with each electron will mean a lower total energy level when the electrons are further apart.

The charge is spread throughout the looped wave. In the Spacetime Wave theory we have moved away from the idea of the electron as a point particle and all the associated problems in calculations leading to infinite results.

This approach to the property charge seems much more satisfactory than the idea of charge as just a fundamental property of particles without any further explanation or cause.

Richard

Akinbo,

"Whose clock then should be used to determine the *universal* value of light velocity?"

Everyone's. There is no absolute time.

"Indeed, it seems mathematically that rods will differ, just as clocks."

Now you've got it! Length contraction and time dilation are both observer-dependent features of special relativity. The uniformity of physical laws is preserved by a mathematical artifact called Lorentz Transformation. That is, when each observer calculates the length of the metre stick or the time of the clock in relation to the other, the local differences in their measurements are reconciled to the universality of physical laws.

Best,

Tom

" ... simply measuring change tells you nothing more than what is faster and what is slower."

Since that's what "change" means, John, I am not bothered by learning any more than that. It's enough.

Best,

Tom

"... Length contraction and time dilation are both observer-dependent features of special relativity. The uniformity of physical laws is preserved by a mathematical artifact called Lorentz Transformation. That is, when each observer calculates the length of the metre stick or the time of the clock in relation to the other, the local differences in their measurements are reconciled to the universality of physical laws. ..."

Neither math nor artifacts have preservation properties. The physical effects of length contraction and clock rate dilation, that is what the Lorentz transformation equations contain, result from a physical cause. No one knows what cause is. We only observe effects and those effects are always about patterns in changes of velocities of objects.

Theorists invent ideas about what cause may be. They inject those ideas, without empirical support, forcibly into the equations of physics. These theoretical flights of fancy are of both a direct corruption and an indirect corruption of the physical integrity of the equations. The direct corruption is immediately obvious because it involves the introduction of non-empirical indefinable units. The two examples of direct theoretical corruption of fundamental physics equations are the introduction of kilograms and degrees.

In relativity theory the corruption occurs indirectly. There have never been experiments performed on either space or time. Neither have ever been observed to experience patterns in changes of velocities. The theorist only imagines that space and time experience effects. There is no empirical support for their imaginings. There is empirical support that the patterns in changes of velocities of objects include relativistic types of variations.

James Putnam

Akinbo,

Keep in mind that the mind cannot properly comprehend absolute, since it is a state bereft of contrast and knowledge is a function of such distinctions. So the question is what is the contrast between space, time and the speed of light.

Now consider the primary premise here; the speed of light in a vacuum. Why is that the starting point? Because once all energy is converted to velocity, there is none left to make it go faster. So the speed of light in a vacuum isn't an absolute, but an ultimate.

This concept requires only two of the mentioned factors, space/vacuum and light. Time only emerges when you measure this effect of velocity, by comparing it to some other process, originally some fraction of the rotation of the planet, now cycles/vibrations of a particular type of very stable atom(cesium). Now if you accelerate that cesium atom to some significant fraction of the speed of light, its cycling/vibrating will slow down proportionally, otherwise the internal activity added to the external velocity would exceed c. Since your clock slows down, as you accelerate, the units you are using to measure against c slow, so you still measure the light at c. Think of it this way, light is a train going by a stationary observer at c. Now if the observer were to move alongside the train, it would normally appear to slow down, but if the clock the observer uses, slows as it moves faster, then the train will always seem to go as fast. Eventually when the clock is moving as fast as light, all internal action is stopped, since there is no more energy, so for light, there is no clock time. So all you really have is energy in space.

Now consider how relativity formulates it; There is this four dimensional spacetime, three of space and one of time. Where these concepts originate is that the three dimensions of space are the xyz coordinate system. It's a handy way to model space, but is it really foundational to space? Are longitude, latitude and altitude foundational to the surface of the planet, or simply a way to model it?

The dimension of time is the narrative sequence; Event A, event B, event C, etc. As I keep trying to point out, temporal sequence isn't even causal! Yesterday doesn't cause today, nor does one wave cause the next. Energy exchange is causal. The sun shining on a rotating planet causes the sequence of events called days. Just as wind across the water causes waves. But in order for energy to be exchanged, there can be no physical vector of time/blocktime, since the prior configuration has to give way in order for the sequential configuration to exist.

Now as I pointed out above, if you accelerate the frame, the clock slows down, because the energy within that frame is being lost, so the actions within it slow and as they slow, the energy holding that frame stable is also being lost, so it shrinks, thus "the rod" is shorter.

Of course, if your frame is the energy itself, since it is not disappearing, but simply radiating out into the larger space, its frame expands as the temperature level drops, but that gets into thermodynamics and relativists think thermodynamics is just for the engineers and other lower breeds than theorists.

Regards, john M

James,

I'm curious to know that since you think Joy Christian has disproved Bell's theorem, how that disproof survives without relativity. How do you think the experimental framework works if it is not performed " ... on either space or time"?

Best,

Tom

re: Tom to Akinbo

...uniformity of physical laws is preserved by a mathematical artifact called Lorentz Transformation.

That is the ticket. It probably isn't reiterated often enough. The concise criteria is the limiter of technical definition of terms which makes it workable. It's a survey marker, not a trick question. Nor is it the end of the story.

Once again, Tom, I can't thank you enough for the challenge to my own degree of ignorance with the link to Wald's paper. "Elapsed time on a curve" is the dynamic, in high performance racing that's where torque catches up with horsepower and the revs that sustain torque. It's like a roulette wheel with the ball speeding opposite the direction of the wheel, as long as the ball's momentum lags behind the wheel's it will follow the rim. But once the ball slows to relative stop with wheel rotation and picks up enough of the wheel momentum to start to roll in the same direction, symmetry is broken and the ball falls down off the rim. Far Out! jrc

Thanks for the vote of confidence, John C. Wald is a favorite. Maybe someday you'd like to tackle his collection (as editor) of University of Chicago lectures, *Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics." It's in the literature where real physics is done -- if one is not aware of it, one falls into the trap of imagining things, like John M's out of thin air claim that relativity theorists don't deal with thermodynamics. (!)

Very nice illustration with the roulette wheel!

All best,

Tom

James,

What a wonderful breath of the fresh air of truth you brought above. Well done. If only it would blow away the fog of belief based quasi-science.

Tom,

My essay shows how Joys result and the predictions of QM can be reproduced geometrically with the real mechanisms identified and described in the DFM. You pray to the false god of mathematics, but it can only 'describe' reality, and only approximate at that. Somewhere back when we knew less you got taken in by those saying it was more. It is not. Maths can't implement anything.

You put your head in the sand saying "it's all complete" and accuse others of "not understanding the maths", or of claiming; "the speed of light has an added velocity" so avoid addressing every pertinent point put to you. You claim you agree science is about correspondence with observation, but when not convenient to you just ignore it, but still claim empirical support. It's the quite fascinating but unscientific behaviour of those religiously indoctrinated. Your credibility is now on the line!

Einstein's 1921 acadamy speech included his; "as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." which my essay agrees. Do you say he was wrong? That's cherry picking! What I do is take his LATER conceptions, which added much to both his 1921 speeches, though he even said here; "The axioms define the objects of which geometry treats (so are) "implicit definitions"."

In other words the maths itself is not fundamental to SR. The Postulates are, precisely as he'd decided by 1952 and stressed then.

So why resist trying to find a better maths that will allow all the, very many, anomalies to be resolved and Einstein's (not the priests) SR to be unified with QM, along with real mechanisms. The LT, 100% correspondence, and a proof of Joy's maths are all implicit. There will be no c+v propagation, and no Pentcho's to chant about paradoxes. Why not look and try to falsify? I really wish to gain an understanding of the demons that scare you more than lost credibility.

Peter

Hi Tom,

RE: "Whose clock then should be used to determine the *universal* value of light velocity?"

Answer: Everyone's. There is no absolute time.

By which you imply EVERYONE IN THE UNIVERSE will measure the same time for light to traverse one metre? That cannot be, considering that the gravitational field must have influence on the value we have obtained here, no matter how infinitesimal that effect may be. On planet X, the time taken for light to traverse one metre ruler will be different due to their different gravitational field strength. This signal delay attributed principally to GR is a reported observation whatever other phenomena may be contributory.

The "mathematical artifact called Lorentz Transformation that reconciles the universality of physical laws" will be relevant ONLY if the civilization on planet X are involved in our measurement process and we are also involved in theirs. That is they are looking at our clock and our metre ruler and we are looking at theirs. No, that is not the case! They are measuring their value of c, writing it down on a paper and coming later to a scientific conference on the moon to compare notes with us, the earth delegates attending. As their "free space" is different from ours, there is to be expected a variation in their value from that of ours. Free space is a theoretical ideal not met by our terrestrial value 299792458m/s. And our claimed free space certainly differs from that of planet X. Unless, you do not share the belief that gravitational or electromagnetic fields influence the values measured in vacuo for light transit time (as GR predicts), permitivity and permeability (as Maxwell's theory predicts).

For us to agree at the lunar conference on a universal free space value for c, each delegation must deduct whatever contribution the gravitational and electromagnetic fields of their respective planets must have contributed to the value they are bringing to the conference!

So, if James or John M don't like the idea of clocks, whose 'free space' or whose 'energy in a vacuum' will be used to determine the universal value of light velocity?.

Regards,

Akinbo

*It's little things like this that can cause wars between planetary civilizations! And planet X have more military capability than we have. Lets work for peace.

" ... By which you imply EVERYONE IN THE UNIVERSE will measure the same time for light to traverse one metre? That cannot be ..."

Sure it can. If it weren't we wouldn't have any idea what "metre" means. If you think gravity affects the speed of light, try calculating the effect and tell me what you come up with.

Tom

Akinbo,

I don't have a problem with clocks, or time in general. I'm just trying to put it in perspective. Temporal sequence, as narrative and causal logic, is the basis of human civilization. I'm just making the argument that it's an effect of our point of perspective to see it as the present moving past to future, rather than a more generalized condition of changing configuration turning future into past.

We still see the sun as moving across the sky from east to west, even though we understand it is due to the earth rotating west to east.

If the clock had evolved in the southern hemisphere, the hand would go the other direction. It is a matter of the evolution of consciousness.

Regards,

John M

I'll leave you all to talk among yourselves. You obviously aren't going to read the literature, so continue making up stuff that makes sense to you.

Tom

Tom,

If nothing affects the rate at which light traverses space, doesn't that refute the premise of an expanding universe, in which space itself is supposed to expand?

Regards, John M

Akinbo,

Nice binary system. But we must define 'absolute' as there are always Bayesian/ Godel (iPAD) distributions between 0 and 1! There's ignored 'wiggle room which I'll show, by my definitions, consistent with SR's postulates but not other assumptions.

Absolute Space; A cosmic medium with a single 'state of motion' for defining speed.

Absolute Time; All Identical clocks read alike to observers at rest in the clock frame.

Absolute speed c; Max local propagation speed with respect to all inertial systems, as SR's postulates.

Now ostensibly 0,1,1 (so no absolute space) may seem to accord with the common SR interpretation which leads to inconsistency with observations and paradoxes. I'll show how 0,1,1, with slightly different assumptions removes those inconsistencies.

0, No Absolute space, but local background inertial systems (media) which can move relatively with respect to each other, not 'thought of' as bounded but mutually exclusive (as Pauli's fermions). We then have a 'toy' model of discrete fields (thus DFM) bounded by fermions (pairs) modulating c by scattering all EM fluctuations/ 'photons' locally to c.

1, Absolute Time. However, Clocks are simply emitters emitting EM signals. Once emitted those signals may be Doppler shifted by the frame change process above, precisely as we find between media (just takes further when diffuse). We then have 'apparent (co-ordinate) time' which is observer dependent due to time and motion.

1, Absolute speed. All local propagation speed is c (or of course c/n in dense media). But here we need to apply a bit more intellect than we have been; The inescapable conclusion of the above is that all local speeds c are different, but unobservable. All observers at rest in all frames will then only find propagation speed c. Einsteins postulates ('SR') is then spot on. c is absolute everywhere, but of course 'everywhere' is moving! Think about it; How on Earth (lol) would any electron or proton know to re-emit light at any other speed than c??

From where I sit, though an intellectually challenge, it seems only the deeply indoctrinated can deny the above as both logical, consistent and corresponding with findings (all the evidence is stacked up in a mountainous pile!)

The Lorentz factor is simply the non-linear 'power curve' as Doppler blue-shifted wavelength approaches gamma. It may also be described as the DFM Optical Breakdown mode at max plasma density (defined). Note that atomic scattering is a real quantum mechanism complete with uncertainty, so SR is derived direct from a QM, if both slightly better defined to be unified. Note that plasma is a ~zero 'EM profile' (dark) quantization of gravitational potential (GR) which give a slight 'JM rotation' of optical axis (space-time 'curvature') including kinetically (from charge asymmetry) so finally recovering Snell's Law from kinetic reverse refraction and Maxwell's field transition, all as in the essays and papers.

So clocks and gravity may indeed be a bit of a 2nd order distraction as Tom suggests. The proposition is then SR's O,1,1, but with 'The Intelligent Bit' between also giving Copenhagen-like QM (moving observer lenses localise c). Could anyone help to falsify that ontology? ('Scientifically' would be good Tom. I've agreed it varies from current assumptions).

Best wishes.

Peter

Dear Akinbo,

The meaning of your reference to my 'dislike' of clocks is not at all clear to me:

"... So, if James or John M don't like the idea of clocks, whose 'free space' or whose 'energy in a vacuum' will be used to determine the universal value of light velocity?. ..."

Here is what I think:

The only universal value of the speed of light is when it is measured locally. It always measures locally as C. Other than that, light speed varies all over the place and it varies widely. Now, in brevity, I will mention that there is only one universally constant value, That value is the time required for light to traverse the radius of the hydrogen atom. That radius is a local constant and is given by the equation h=k(delta x).

Divide Planck's constant by Boltzmann's constant and you have the magnitude 4.8x10^-11. The reason that the units do not appear to match is that the units must be corrected first by eliminating the indefinable status of kilograms. No units other than the two units of empirical evidence can be indefinable.

The two units of empirical evidence are meters and seconds. Indefinable units are units that cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing units. The units of empirical evidence are naturally indefinable. They are the first units. There are no units before them.

When the units of mass are corrected by defining them, the units of Planck's constant are meter*seconds, and, the units of Boltzmann's constant are seconds. Both have clear physical meanings.

All other units are not empirical units. All of them follow after the introduction of the units of empirical evidence. All of them must be defined in terms of the pre-existing units of meters and seconds. This corrective act removes theory from the equations of physics. Theory must be able to invent its own indefinable units in order to exist.

When those artificial theoretical indefinable units are done away with, the equations of physics are returned to their natural empirical condition. I do not assume that this is convincing to you. It does report what I have found to be the case. It all starts with fixing f=ma. The units of mass are made definable. All other corrections follow from this first correction. Even the correction of units of degrees follows from correcting the units of mass.

This is what my work is about. I reproduce the equations of fundamental physics into their natural empirical forms. Their natural interpretations follow easily. I have done the work to support what I say and have written about it extensively. Perhaps this compressed information will help you to know the kinds of things I say and why I say them. Thank you for your message.

James Putnam

Dear Tom, John, James, Peter and all,

Going through the exchanges on this thread, will you be surprised if the delegates from planet X that we will be meeting in '2020' at the Lunar conference don't label us as lunatics? If we cant agree on how to measure light velocity, write down its value and bring to the conference what are we making of the legacies handed down to us by Galileo, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein?

For example, how can we say 'the speed of light has a universal value and in the same breadth say light speed varies all over the place and it varies widely', how can we 'continue making up stuff that makes sense only to us on earth and yet be using words like universal'. If we don't have an answer, it is humble to say so. Perhaps, if there is someone in the house expert on relativity matters we should consult him or her instead of misquoting Einstein. Tom has quoted one thing from the "holy book" and Peter has rightly countered with something opposite from the same book!

Tom, you can check up what is called the Shapiro delay, if you want to know how gravity slows down light's transit time over a metre distance. So, if a metre ruler here is a metre ruler on Planet X, (as Einstein said in the paper Tom linked) and you have a light source and detector-timer at one end and a mirror at the other end, calculating light speed in earth's 'free space' is not rocket science. What is ego-centric is wanting to impose your local value on the delegates from Planet X, whose 'free space vacuum' will be under a different gravitational and electromagnetic field influence. To avoid discord, it is either we honestly present our value of 299792458m/s, with the proviso that we have not been able to correct for the presence of our earth's gravitational and E-M field and request for assistance from them if they have the technology and mathematics to remove this background influence on our value. With this we can return from the conference, with a light velocity value in free space vacuo, which we can confidently term a universal constant.

Regards all,

Akinbo