Alternative Models of Reality

John,

You again build straw men as you haven't re-read and understood the model. On all satellites AND missiles at 0.5c the oscillators oscillate at the same speed while not 'accelerating' in the local rest frame. Only their emissions, or non-coherent or 'elastic' matter systems change (Doppler shift).

You postulate 4 options as if they're all logically and empirically possible, but of course the truth is quite different in both cases. Only one meets ALL observation and logic! It's just that you're misrepresenting it so it appears not to.

First. The one thing the relativity and all it;'s proofs DID prove and has proved beyond all and any doubt is that THERE CANNOT BE JUST 'ONE' ABSOLUTE BACKGROUND FRAME! That was the whole point of SR, the postulates, and the relativity of simultaneity, and it is borne out because we find c can never be exceeded as a PROPAGATION speed locally, even though relative speeds are NOT so constrained.

But this is where interpretation went wrong and caused all the paradox. Theory assumed that meant there could be NO background frame at all! But what I've found is that it did NOT mean that. We must imagine LOCAL background frames, each within it's own greater local background frame, hierarchically, and ONLY limited to c in IT'S OWN background. One we can visualise that, which you've not yet managed, all the confusion then lifts.

in practice then you're totally wrong about the Space Station. As we well know, has a maximum speed wrt Earth's ionosphere, NOT with respect to ANY other planets ionosphere! Do you really suggest different? The background datum frame for the limit c is only ever 'LOCAL'!! It works as smoothly as silk in all cases. Earth's speed is c wrt the heliosphere NOT any other heliosphere! The speed of light on a train and in the ISS is c respectively wrt the train and ISS NOT vice versa, or any OTHER train or space probe!

What possible scenario can you dream up where this heirarchical model (derived in great logical detail in my last years essay!) doesn't work perfectly?? Einstein also arrived at it in 1952; ("space 's' in relative motion within larger space 'S'). i.e. A lens is a small 'space' which may be in any arbitrary state of motion through the background frame of the local space. The evidence of it's speed is the Doppler shift of what it detects. Let me give you an example you'll better understand; If you get your best horse up to a full gallop, what speed is it doing wrt Jupiters moon Io? ...Correct. It's entirely arbitrary and irrelevant! Yes? All datums vary, so are 'local'.

I propose there is simply no logical or empirical comparison between this model (dead simple once understood) and all others which remain paradoxical and illogical. Why not give it a test run!

(and once you comprehend it do please tell me why it seems so difficult)

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

"To me you sound like the man who dismissed the automobile when it was conceived as there was nowhere to fit the reigns for the horses."

And you sound like the man who designed an automobile without an engine, which is what makes it "auto" and differentiates it from a horse cart.

What I asked is exceedingly simple, Peter -- what powers your model? I can't imagine that Einstein would be given credit for special relativity without E = mc^2, can you?

Best,

Tom

Peter,

"We must imagine LOCAL background frames, each within it's own greater local background frame, hierarchically, and ONLY limited to c in IT'S OWN background."

If the local background frame is then within a greater frame, isn't that frame then hierarchically within an even larger such frame, until everything visible(traversed by light), at least, exists in the largest such background frame?

Tom,

As I am used to your automatic dismissals, even when any reason is apparently lacking.

Networks are ecosystems, entities are organisms. The ways in which the process can mutate between one and the other seems endless.

Regards,

John M

John, how can you say that I dismiss you when I keep replying? Yes, I agree that organisms interact with ecosystems. And?

Tom

Tom,

And for the correspondence I'm thankful, but I would qualify "no rational sense" as a dismissal.

Our brains function as an ecosystem, as do our guts, yet in a linear direction. This organism then exists as a component in a larger ecosystem. Sort of like a river is an ecosystem, yet flowing in one direction while part of a larger convective cycle.

And? Just offering feedback in the larger process...

Regards,

John M

Zeeya,

Thank you for getting the log in fixed!

Regards,

John M

John,

" ... I would qualify 'no rational sense' as a dismissal."

And if you demonstrate to me that the statement you made is rational (in the scientific meaning) I will surely apologize.

"Our brains function as an ecosystem, as do our guts, yet in a linear direction."

Not if a brain network is a complex system. If the process were linear, we would already know everything about the brain that is possible to know. Brain functions, and ecosystems and guts for that matter, obey exceedingly nonlinear equations that are notoriously difficult to solve.

Best,

Tom

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

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

Zeeya,

I haven't timed it, but have now left it to simmer for just over 3 hours, 2 since my last post, and the bottom line says I'm still logged in. Le't find out.

While writing, I'm hoping for a response to my post(s) to you above.

Best Wishes

Peter (J)

" ... 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