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

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

    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

    Eckard,

    Some may find honesty and exactitude optional, so 'belief and assumptions' then trump 'findings and logic', but I don't. I was disappointed in your assumption above that I did so.

    That assumption was easy to make from casual checking. My use of the word 'immediately' probably mislead you. The systemic problem was 'immediately recognised' when the raw data was released, well after 1964 but before 1971 (the first paper I found was 1968). I hope I showed above that your assumption was incorrect. I'm not after any apology but hope you noticed my response and will remember that I was indeed precise if incomplete (impossible on a blog!), both in the interests of integrity and to help avoid future false assumptions.

    I expect it may have been no more a 'conspiracy' than the removal of posts on Joy's blog which Tom was criticising. In fact in this case I do have some sympathy, as there is a strong case to suggest that perhaps mankind isn't yet ready to handle the powerful truths of nature. Would even 2020 be too soon?

    What do you think?

    Peter

    J.C.

    The problem Maxwell's equations don't resolve is the failure of Snell's Law and 'Fresnel' refraction at the near/far field transition zone (TZ). We still only have entirely anomalous 'Fraunhofer refraction' and 'virtual photons' there, with all the 'non-linear' optical effects such as Kinetic Reverse Refraction (KRR), termed 'bizarre' under present interpretations.

    This is one area the DFM interpretation and mechanism proves to coherently resolve, recovering Snell's Law and rationalising Special Relativity, QM, KRR et al. Consider the matrix I mailed you as also representing the state changes at Maxwell's TZ. All will then fall into place. But you do need to apply your intellect not just rely on old assumptions.

    What you've seen are glimpses, but you're still mainly held by the marshy mire Popper characterised old theory as founded on.

    You have a head start as you trust the answer exists and want to find it.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    (PS. If anyone else wishes to see the matrix just ask).

    In the Alternative Models of (other people's) Reality category, now that the Disproofs of Disproofs of Disproofs of Disproofs thread has quieted for the moment, it has long seemed to me a vortex of opposing factions pulling on the inevitable loose ends of each other's models and going around in circles. With the repetitions and deletions it was as though scratches appeared on the record and it started to skip. (Whoever titled the thread must have had a similar feeling.)

    I provide this as one small anecdotal analogy for the fact that while vortices frequently appear in nature, their mathematical projection to infinity, commonly referred to as singularities, never does, because this is a physical phenomena that occurs when conflicting elements exchange energy and is thus created and absorbed by this larger context. So whether it is atmospheric situations of cold fronts moving over warmer air, or galactic formations of contracting mass interacting with expanding radiation, or people in conflict, the action is ultimately cyclical. Only on small scales does it look linear.

    As for locality, vs. non-locality, could it be a manifestation of bottom up/linear and local, vs. top down/systemic, non-linear, scalar processes?

    Regards,

    John M

      Pete,

      My internet provider did not for some reason, transfer the attachment of the matrix reference chart. One thing I am curious about in particular is to what extent today's quantum mechanics picture has evolved beyond Bohr's original hypothesis which in non-technical presentations portrays the 'quantum leap' as an instantaneous event. Does it not seem practical for the wavelength emerging from change in energy state of an atomic mass to be a function of the time interval of the rest frame in which that change of state occurs, expelling the quantum of each waveform? jrc

        This thread getting rather long to track...

        Hi Peter,

        Let me say your theory is one of the more promising (second to mine of course :). So don't take whatever comments I make personal. There has to be better precision in whatever proposal you make. I admit you might be typing something and may mean something else more correct in your mind. (You forgot your name somewhere above ;). Now when you say, "Light does c through all matter systems wrt the rest frame of the matter. Simple as that. The G field only then has a secondary affect because it affects particle density. That resolves Q1.".

        This cannot be wholly correct. Why?

        Water is a matter system and while in its rest frame light does not do c (299792458m/s) in it, it does about 2253604947m/s. I agree what the G field can do to density and thus light transit time.

        Thanks for giving us references on the Shapiro effect. It means we must take the gravitational effect on light with some pinch of salt IF there is no medium whose particle density can be affected. Why is everybody shying away from dark matter?

        Hi Tom,

        You should have more to say because you initially said "If you think gravity affects the speed of light, try calculating the effect and tell me what you come up with" and I have quoted Penrose and Shapiro for you. So there is no doubting on this premise that gravity has effect on light transit time, no matter how infinitessimal. Since the experiments on which SR postulates depend were carried out UNDER the "weak" gravitational field of the earth, is it unreasonable that some "weak" correction must equally apply to those postulates? Is it similarly unreasonable that the terrestrially determined value of c, MUST be corrected "weakly" to remove the weak gravitational field effect in order to now arrive at what can now rightly be called a universal value? Attempts to divide physics into Special and General when all phenomena take place in the same universe appear unhelpful and seem to always give an alibi. When confronted with a paradox in GR, one can hide and say it is due to SR and vice-versa. Galileo, Newton and even Einstein didn't do physics this way. Einstein was humble enough to abandon some concepts when inconsistencies were pointed out to him. But had the conviction to hold on to others, which many disagreed with and are now forced to eat the pie baked in Copenhagen, much to their current discomfort.

        Regards,

        Akinbo