Alternative Models of Reality

Eckard,

Who is 'Stuart' Shapiro? The 1964 test Akinbo referred was indeed Irwin Shapiro. The Fifth Texas Symposium was in 1970, and it's a matter of record that Shapiro was to be keynote speaker. The much respected Robert Dicke replaced him. but was quite diplomatic, explaining that due to "systematic variations" in the radar data Shapiro 'had doubts about the solar interplanetary radar test of GR.'

B.G. Wallace also spoke, explaining; "It is now apparent that the (Lincoln) Lab used computer methods to artificially rectify the 1961 radar data. They did so in order to remove large frequency-related variations that were obviously related to intervening plasma." See; 'Spectroscopy Letters', 3(4+5) 115-121 1970. also 4(3 &4), 79-84 1971. and 4(5), 123-127 1971. also Foundations of Physics. Vol. 3, No 3, 1973. I can give you more exact information if you feel you need it.

Wallace was subsequently attacked but had obtained the original data so was never refuted. [Interestingly the web references I've kept seem to be regularly 'tidied away' but nobody can remove all the printed documents]. Not exactly an auspicious time for physics, but I'm sure they meant well.

Peter

Peter,

I think people will look back and see lot of what we think today as hopelessly naive. For one thing, the idea of dichotomies will likely be much more taken for granted, that most observations have not just opposing views, but a variety of reflections.

To paraphrase Newton; "For every thought, there is an equal and opposite thought."

Regards,

John M

PS, One thought which has been occurring to me, in terms of my point about time and looking at where the world seems to be headed, is that I keep pointing out that if time were a vector from past to future, the faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but the opposite is true. Since it is a process by which the future becomes past, the faster clock burns/ages more rapidly, so it moves into the past quicker. If this idea were to take hold, then maybe civilization might begin to appreciate the value of "Slowing down and thinking." Since more speed often just means one peaks sooner.

Tom,

Them's the facts. Only you can decide if there's some conspiracy. The (Lincoln Lab) project was sponsored by the army and supposed to be in collaboration with the Russians! As it was at the height of the cold war misinformation era I'd not be too surprised at the generals wanting to throw a curved ball. But the data remains the data whatever, both raw, and the very different figures after the (army's Lincoln) computer was used to 'clean them up' (which is openly admitted).

But to gain any credibility back you can't claim all findings support the predictions of SR and/or GR and also assume that includes all the 'interpretations' of SR and/or GR, while blithely ignoring those which very clearly don't!

Quite apart from the 20 anomalies I posted to you, the recent findings of the VLBA and confirmed apparent superluminal motion of quasar jets pulses of up to 46c make nonsense of the interpretations which you claim are implicit. All I'm pointing out is that, as Einstein said, they are not implicit, so SR and GR do not have to fall if any part of the assumptive decorations fall.

You always have the other option; To explain the findings in terms of your beliefs. Can you do so? If not, what's you objection to a more consistent interpretation?

Peter

Peter Jackson

I think I see where your criteria must rely on quantum averaging, and for that sort of regime perhaps Lorentz transforms are well suited, they sure worked well for Einstein in relation to averaging mass with measurable volume such as in our own solar mass. Incidentally, you may be putting yourself outside modern convention more than convention excluding you. NASA theoreticians were ecstatic when the data was crunched, they had been afraid it could take years.

Where I find difficulty with what is really a 'short answer' concerning refraction index, is the common phraseology of 'wave speed'. Rigorously the speed of the wave could only slow down if a (choice) 1 cm wavelength waveform were to take 1.0003 seconds to transit 3^10 cm of average earth atmosphere. It ceases being a 1 cm wavelength at the refraction plane, and each waveform event is contracted a reciprocal of the refraction index from the original 1 cm length. It turns blue, and carries with it the absorption line signature of it's source of emission. Upon exit from refractive medium, transiting the refraction plane, the wavelength does not 'stretch' back out to 1 cm. That does not mean that it necessarily retains the refracted length, any alteration of the wavelength by a medium is always in a proportion of refraction index to 'zero' refraction. A wavetrain in atmospheric transiting through glass, would experience firstly the atmospheric contraction, then the additional glass contraction, but would then have that combined contracted length rebound very slightly by the reciprocal value of atmospheric to 'zero' refraction when the wave form transits from glass to the atmosphere. There is definitely, an arrow of time.

In gross evaluation such as is necessary in a treatment of aggregates of discrete field entities, it might not be a problem to average as many things as reasonably possible and box refraction as a slower speed. I can't say. If you are confident in results you obtain correlating to experimental observations, then go for it. With this caveat, you have expressed something of a disconnect between the heuristic conceptual construct and a representation by mathematic formalization, and that does leave the uninitiated a bit disoriented. The more simplified the math introduction, the more quickly the physical relation can be grasped.

Onward! through the fog! jrc

Peter, may we have some references to your "facts," please? Here's mine.

John M,

I agree. Re "part of [physicists'] philosophy is that if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist ":

There are things that can't be measured, but we can represent them either with words or symbols. E.g. I contend that physical reality is actually made out of not only things that can be measured, but things that can't be measured: the "+ - ÷ x" and the "=" found in law of nature mathematical equations represent non-measurable aspects of reality. These symbols can't just be swept under the carpet and ignored: if they don't live in a Platonic realm then they must represent a real part of THIS universe. (We might philosophise about what these symbols might imply about the nature of reality. I contend that they represent information relationship and information balance.)

Zeeya,

The non-measurable aspects of reality are the basis for a GENUINE alternative model of reality. There is nothing genuinely alternative about multiverses, living inside a computer game or loop quantum gravity etc. etc. because they are all just another set of equations with another set of interpretations of these equations: but they never examine what an equation actually is. Seemingly they all assume equations are given and non-decomposable; they turn a blind eye to the above mentioned non-measurable aspects of equations. Yet equations clearly consist of modular components, e.g. "+, -, ÷, x" and "=": so it is unlikely that what equations represent just arises whole and complete ex nihilo.

So I contend that unless a theory accounts for the "+ - ÷ x" and the "=" found in its equations, it is incomplete. It is a misrepresentation to propose e.g. a multiverse or a computer game universe: actually what is REALLY being hypothesised is a (multiverse PLUS platonic realm) or a (computer game universe PLUS platonic realm).

Cheers,

Lorraine

Lorraine,

Keep in mind that factors and functions are nouns and verbs. Since math is conceptual compression, I would argue the ultimate theory of everything is; "Stuff happens."

Regards,

John M

Tom,

There's little scientific credibility in a PR event for an old man with an invited audience. I wrote an article on this some years ago. The interesting thing is all my web links are either now dead or have been tampered with! Wide records of the annual symposiums on relativistic astrophysics all exist, except for some reason the Fifth! If ever any clumsy footprint evidence existed that seems like it!

But pdf's and printed matter remain, as does the science. 'Venus Express' has found an 'unexpected' thick atmosphere, giving refractive light delays way over the 2ns predicted from curvature. Unless Shapiro went there first and knew how thick it was his removal of 90% of the delay to leave the 2ns was just a 'stab in the dark.' That was the 'systematic error' Dicke, Wallis etc found, so was why he was 'pulled' as keynote speaker.

If it was some attempt to mislead the Russians it failed anyway. Svetlana Tolchelnikova-Murri (Pulkovo Observatory) pointed out the error shortly afterwards but her paper didn't get published in the US. But was Shapiro's 1971 paper 'pulled'? Hell was it! So when the model was later used on Jupiter and proved to be rubbish there was no end of confusion and argument!

I could send you some pdf's direct, but the Jupiter stuff is all still available. As is a quote from a 1965 letter to Shapiro in the AJ on a realted issue; "The main reason that your newer results appear to look better, is that your group found it could eliminate the large daily variations by changing to a constant observing time (12:00 UT), even when the planet was not observed or in some cases was not even visible."(J. V. Evans, etal., Astron. J. 70, 486- 1965) . Just a few relevant papers;

Evans, J. V., R. P. Ingalls, 1968: Absorption of Radar Signals by the Atmosphere of Venus. J. Atmos. Sci., 25, 555-559. doi: 10.1175/1520-0469 (1968) 0252.0.CO;2

Wallace B.G., Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space. Spectroscopy Letters. Volume 2, Issue 12, 1969

Ingals R.P., Evans J.V., MIT. Scattering Properties of Venus at 3.8cm. AJ, vol.74 no.2, 1969.

Asada H., 2002, The Light-cone Effect on the Shapiro Time Delay http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0206/0206266v1.pdf

Kopeikin, S. 2001, ApJ, 556, L1

Kopeikin S.M. The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Theoretical Interpretation 2003. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302462

Klioner S.A. A&A 404, 783-787 (2003) DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030559

The beauty of the DFM is that it shown none of the above challenges the true postulates and theory of relativity. All it does is prove some attached assumptions were wrong, and finally allow the missing mechanisms and compatibility with (an also slightly re-interpreted to allow particles with structure) QM. SR and GR will not then fail on the now overwhelming and confirmed evidence of apparent superluminal motion and ionospheric refraction.

Of course if there was some well meaning conspiracy I'd have some sympathy with it. It seems our intellectual development may not be quite ready to face unified physics! Perhaps 2030?

Peter

Ah, Peter. I'm going to ignore your conspiracy theory, and address this point alone:

"All it does is prove some attached assumptions (of special relativity - ed.) were wrong, and finally allow the missing mechanisms and compatibility with (an also slightly re-interpreted to allow particles with structure) QM. SR and GR will not then fail on the now overwhelming and confirmed evidence of apparent superluminal motion and ionospheric refraction."

You just refuse to understand that one cannot discard *any* assumption of special relativity and preserve the theory. You are going to have to build your theory on a different foundation. I'll be interested when you find it.

All best,

Tom

And by the way, do you really think the Massachusetts Institute of Technology would tacitly agree to falsify scientific results for the sake of " ... a PR event for an old man with an invited audience."?

Really, Peter?

Tom,

Exactly!!!! That's the reality of the non-platonic view. Everything is not just a poor copy of some ideal, but arises from the essential. Which is activity in space. Stuff happens. ;-)

Regards,

John M

We agree in principle, John. I hope you don't mind that some of us will continue to paint pictures, anyway, independent of the wall they hang on. :-)

All best,

Tom

Tom,

We each express our vision of reality. The absolute would be just a flatline...

Regards, John M

A correction to my post to you on 9/16, I got apples and oranges mixed with the delay and wavelength rate of change in the second paragraph towards the end. The rate of delay can rebound going from greater to lesser refraction index, not the wavelength. There's a fine example of why math is an essential tool to check yourself for commutative property in redistribution of terms. jrc

J.C.

Hmm.Your struggle with optics is not uncommon. I have foundations there as does my co-author J.M. It's really very clear and consistent once rationalised, but easy to trip up on the way. Just think 'signal propagation speed' to avoid confusion. For instance you suggest;

"Upon exit from refractive medium, transiting the refraction plane, the wavelength does not 'stretch' back out to 1 cm."

That is exactly what it DOES do. Consider Lena Hau's (Harvard) experiments from the 50's till now for instance. She slowed light to 35mph in BEC 50 years ago! The wavelength in the medium is compressed (blue shifted) which conserves the energy. But when it reached the air again wavelength extends again because the waves reach the RP sequentially; over time.

So the process at the RP is one of "temporal evolution" of the interaction. i.e. between each peak entering, the one in front has slowed down or speed up so it is always the scalar quality wavelength lambda that changes!

Now you must separate and distinguish the 'PMD' speed change due to refractive index (the extra charge/emission time in each particle of the dielectric medium, also density dependent) from the kinetic speed change if the new medium is ALSO in realtive motion. This is due to the fact that all electrons re-emit at c in THEIR OWN rest frame, which is a NEW frame. How could they know any other c?

This is what takes a little time to imprint on the neural network! There are TWO speed changes between co-moving media. But follow the rules. You can only measure EM state, inc. wavelength if you are AT REST IN the new medium frame. That means, if it's co-moving, YOU have to also accelerate!!

Where science all went wrong is when Lodge forgot that, and considered apparent frequency from some arbitrary frame (his lab frame) as equivalent to frequency and wavelength when measured by a detector at rest IN a spinning glass disc. There's been confusion outside optics ever since. So as I said, you need to visualise, absorb and rehearse the various 'observer frame' cases to retain the kinetic effects which resolve all the paradoxes.

Send me an E Mail (see essays) and I'll reply with a simple reference chart to help.

Peter

Tom,

I use Einstein's foundations. You didn't answer; Should we use your views now or those you held 40 years ago?

I don't 'refuse to understand' anything. You keep chanting the same chant. I do understand. I always did. It's you who now say FTL quasar pulses are OK by 'your' SR! I've just shown they're OK by Einstein's more consistent 1952 SR too.

So explain how Shapiro new exactly the refractive loss from the Venus atmosphere so he could remove it to leave the tiny 'predicted' result, and why it doesn't now work (Jupiter etc). ??

'Conspiracy' was your idea. I just think it's the same type of well meaning misguided souls who remove posts off the web as they don't agree with them. Almost precisely the same in fact. Ring any Bells?

How about some honesty to avoid the smells starting to hang around all the avoidances from getting ever worse?

Peter

Pete,

Thank-you for the clarification and info on the rebound, I thought I was wrong.

Let me digest this some, I seem to remember a TV program that briefly presented Hau's experiments, super-cooled media as I recall.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that GR results in defining time dilation at distances from an inertial body provide the means to eventually define a discrete field. Not unlike Faraday's results providing Maxwell with the real field intensities from which to unify the EM field. The utility in formalizing

those GR results in a linear equation to equate energy density (field intensity)

with distribution of energy quantity should not be objectionable to theorists simply on the grounds that GR is formulated on a curved surface. The results of GR are there at the ready, why not use them. Still, that formality must be addressed to provide the geometry between discrete fields (particles and charge definition) to apply SR. jrc

Peter, I don't have any more to say.

This is a repeat of an earlier post with a correction (proton instead of electron in 5th paragraph).

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

We are told that there are four fundamental forces namely: gravitation, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. Why are there four forces and what is the underlying cause of these forces?

We need to start with the force of gravity and use the ideas of General Relativity (GR) to think through how the geometry of spacetime results in this force. The force of gravity appears to be a force acting between two bodies somehow pulling them together; a sort of action at a distance. GR tells us that it is the geometry of spacetime that results in the force of gravity.

The Spacetime Wave theory asserts that all fundamental forces arise as a result of the geometry of spacetime acting on objects in spacetime. This assertion seems surprising at first since the magnitude of the gravitational force is much less than the other forces. How can we understand how the electromagnetic and nuclear forces arise from the geometry of spacetime? The key point is to note that the presence of a force will be accompanied by a difference in energy levels between two states. If a force is present, this implies an energy difference between the current state and any physical movement in the direction of the force. So the magnitude of the force will be related to an energy difference between two states.

In the case of the strong nuclear force the energy difference is the mass deficit. When a proton and a neutron are in close proximity, the energy (mass) is less than the energy (mass) of the individual proton and neutron widely separated. The explanation for this phenomenon lies in the looped spacetime wave nature of the neutron and proton. The energy of the spacetime wave in a closed loop is affected by the close proximity of another looped spacetime wave.

Similarly the electrostatic force and the magnetic force can be seen to arise from differences in energy levels once we have grasped the Spacetime Wave theory as related to electric charge.

This approach to the property force seems much more satisfactory than the idea of a force arising from a continuous exchange of particles.

Richard