Alternative Models of Reality

Thomas Ray

"it makes a great difference whether both force and mass receive defined units or if one receives indefinable units."

The difference is ...? I'm listening.

pjackson

JC.

I agree 'sound bite' explanations work well. Observer dependency (acceleration) is one option, also linking SR and Copenhagen. But it then needs the prohibited 'dependency of +v' explained, which then needs the process at the lens explained.

The problem with a 'ontological construction' is that like the Eiffel tower, no one bit will stand up alone. There is also a problem with how you expressed it, in that we need to identify and separate the two very distinct effects ; the shift due to 'delta n', and the shift due to 'delta v,' so the word 'equivalent' can be easily misinterpreted, or the explanation gets more cumbersome. It did take even me a few minutes to unravel what your sentence meant!

I have worked on a number of 'headline' explanations, and eventually arrived at a 'sequence' of them which I've expressed as postulates of the DFM, but to be 'complete' they need proper specification. That's the problem with soundbites. Let me know if these make sense to you;

1). EM wave propagation speed locally within all media is c modified by refractive index n.

2). Particles absorb EM signals over non zero time, re-emitting them at LOCAL c requantized.

3). A massive body in motion in the quantum vacuum is surrounded by an extended region bounded by a plasma shock of n = ~1. EM fluctuations within that region propagate at c with respect to the body

4). Detected D f requires a real Dl (< g) of at least two wave peaks, giving fl = Local c.

5). Speed is only 'Proper' when using 'Proper Time', which is emitted by clocks at rest in the detectors frame. All other speed is apparent or 'co-ordinate' (relative), using co-ordinate time, so 'apparent c+vg'.'

6). EM signal source positions are perceived on an optical axis of re-emission, which may be rotated away from a causal wavefront normal by lateral particle motion during absorption.

7). Emitted light can't be detected/measured until interacting with and scattered by matter.

8). Inertial frames are states of motion. An inertial system may be assigned a state of system translational motion K at any moment in time. Uncountable smaller frames may exist within all larger systems, forming a kinetic hierarchy.

9). EM waves change speed to c in any new local frame via a kinetic magneto-hydrodynamic boundary coupling, including at an interacting observer (detector), and not before.

10). The universe consists of everything and everything is unique. So 'a' does not = a, a ~ a.

11). Helically anisotropic causal but random virial particle systems give observed inequalities.

Peter

[deleted]

Pete,

Firstly; I see what you mean about 'equivalent'. Later.

I'll go back and read your post fully, but I wanted to point out that the view of Eiffel's tower on approach impresses it's form from which then the axiomatic structure is given place and proportion. That region to a distance away from the electrostatic boundary of either emitter surface or receiver surface that is experimentally well established extends outward to equal of two wavelengths. It is in that near region where matter and energy transmute. Permit me...

What passes for www.journalism@someblog.etc is lacking two w's. (And to my mind, no little ethic.) The task in editorializing is the allocation of space and managing the layout on content, which is limited to the "Who,What,Where,When, and Why" rule. So introduce your axioms onto a form that answers "What". It is about ...? Where do I find a point of departure?

It would be more succinct to say that your DFM is an alternative 'in' the standard model 'to' the treatment of relative translational speeds of light in media of different refractive index, but this has ramifications that greatly reduce apparent complexity, and predictivity that is randomly anomalous to observation, that arise in conventional treatment of a change in translational speed as an instantaneous event. That refinement to the standard model extends to applications in all manner of matter and energy interaction providing a substantiated predictability.

Give the reader an peg on which to hang his hat. We're literally talking about the transmutation of energy and matter at light velocity. Just don't scare 'em with that right off. Lay it out for them. cheers jrc

John Cox

Pete,

Apart from my earlier post, and in regard to 'delta n' and 'delta v' it occurred to me that while the wavelength in the far field can be predicated on the time interval in the emitter frame, that does not mean that the two wavelength dimension of distance in the near field is equal to two wavelength time intervals. It would naturally be one wavelength time interval relative to the emmiter frame and two wavelength direction intervals relative to the far field wavelength time interval. Thereby the two lambda distance is of

2(1r) and each 1r is one side of an r^2, or 'tau', as proper time in the emitter frame. It is only the electrostatic field intensity that decays by inverse square of distance in the near field, as it does in the far field. The magnetostatic field intensity decays as the inverse cube of distance in the near field, while 'evanescent' or internally reflected waves that do not emerge from the emitter, decay at an inverse exponential rate with distance. jrc

pjackson

JC,

"Light changes speed between moving media to do c locally". How's that for a headline?

Of course it's incomplete, we should use; "to conserve c locally", and "dielectric" media, and it's always c/n in the 'bulk flow' frame, but at n=1 that IS c. and we MUST make the distinction between delta n and delta v, and also that it's speed BETWEEN all particles is c wrt the emitting particle, and that all detectors are made of such particles, ...etc.

But if headlines are to catch the attention not to explain things. How does it sound to you?

Or there is also the possible angle "New Speed Discovered!" There is both 'propagation' speed (real) and 'relative' speed (apparent) for photons as well as objects, but it must be stressed the SR Postulates re-emerge more consistent and compatible with QM, as most think like Tom, that if we replace the familiar restaurant, viewing platform and paint that 'is' the Eiffel Tower to most, the underlying structure will simply collapse!

Despite last years essay, challenging foundations is really unacceptable to most and the scientific method is overcome by established beliefs.

On the 'time' thing. The easiest way to consider it for sure is that the rate of 'TIME' itself does not change anywhere, it is a universal NOW. What changes all the time is the physical EM emissions from things we call 'clocks'. If one wavelength takes one 'second', then moving from the near to far field, (or reaching ANY observer doing some speed other than that of the emitter), an observer at rest in that field will see the apparent rate of time changed. Only the wavelength, or 'length' of the signal when at c, has really changed. Getting used to that is like learning to drive; only hard at first.

The red herring is 'frequency' as it's the 'observable'. To compute new wavelength in the far field the relative field speeds and propagation speeds in each must be known.

For a race used only to horses how do we explain how a 'car' works, or what use it is?

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

Your position is that time dilation is a visual effect? In other words, the observer sees something changed that has not changed. I know that you say the wavelength changes. This is common in variable speed of light theories. My question pertains to the clock. It only looks like it has changed its rate? Does this mean to you that the Lorentz transform for time dilation describes an illusion? I am asking about the clock and not the wavelength of the received light. Thank you.

"On the 'time' thing. The easiest way to consider it for sure is that the rate of 'TIME' itself does not change anywhere, it is a universal NOW. What changes all the time is the physical EM emissions from things we call 'clocks'. If one wavelength takes one 'second', then moving from the near to far field, (or reaching ANY observer doing some speed other than that of the emitter), an observer at rest in that field will see the apparent rate of time changed. Only the wavelength, or 'length' of the signal when at c, has really changed. Getting used to that is like learning to drive; only hard at first."

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

No. The LT is a real physical non-linear effect at domain boundary crossings. All clocks keep on ticking at the same rate, the only change is to the emissions after emission. Does the simple logic emerge?

To understand the (Lorentz Transformation) LT we need to look closely at how these new 'car' things work. Let's take a DFM automatic, and the 'torque converter'. Essentially it's a box filled with fluid made of particles. Changing viscosity changes the relationship of the motions each side of the box. So at each end of the box the particles are in a different state of motion (rest frame), or 'doing different speeds.'

A DFM 'two-fluid plasma' shock has the same dynamic { two-fluid plasma.}. The details are a bit technical but each particle absorbs light and re-emits it at c in the particle frame. This in NOT the same as VSL theories, and all observers at rest in all frames will find light propagating at c, but even when NOT at rest, the LT at their lens surface fine structure means they can only measure the CHANGED lambda, and again find propagation at c (read c/n). (That 'insight' is unique to the DFM).

The complex mechanism is linear (but with non-linearity) and involves instant propagation and 'charge cancellation' over the Debye length (standard plasma physics). The non linearity (Lorentz Factor) relates to gamma (max energy density) and related 'optical breakdown mode'. For those interested it's 'anomalous' to present theoretical assumptions but is standard quantum optics and all explained, published and web-archived on Academia, or Phil's archive here; Optical Breakdown limit as a Mechanism for the Lorentz Transformation.

I hope that answer is complete enough (but I've omitted any Q-Gravity).

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

"No. The LT is a real physical non-linear effect at domain boundary crossings."

Ok. You apply the transform only to the received wavelength. The normal use of the transform is to apply it to the clock. Your position is that the Lorentz transform for time dilation has nothing to do with the clock.

When a clock moves horizontally to the earth either with its rotation or opposite to it as on an airplane, does the clock change its rate and if so why?

If a clock is raised up in a gravitational field, does its rate change and if so why?

James Putnam

John Cox

James,

Your post to Peter on 9/28 says, "your position is that the Lorentz Transform for time dilation has nothing to do with the clock."

As I understand so far, "yes". The clock(s) relate to distance through medium of differing refractive index. In his modeling of theoretical constructs which do require using operational definitions where general definition simply does not exist, the LT is a mathematical function (and in math a function is a relationship) which portrays the physical relationship of clock and distance as a real progressively slowing of translational speed. His wording of "the LT is a real non-linear effect..." is an encapsulation of the physical relationship.

It is inherent to his model, however that he refers to a clock in a super-dominant inertial reference, within which inertial domains of discrete fields are embedded, and in the specific case of electric and magnetic field properties those too are discrete fields within inertial fields. Hope this helps clear the air, and of course I wish to be corrected if this is at anyway at variance with what Pete himself sees his modeling as being. cheers jrc

James Putnam

John Cox,

Thank you for your message. Peter and I have talked, here at FQXi.org, about his theory many times over a period of years now. To cut this short, the last time we talked I tried to pursue testing his mechanism with the conservation laws. He declined to pursue it. His opinion was that his mechanism was a logical solution to a preponderance of evidence. That is not good enough. The mechanism must be tested. This time I am asking again for what effects his mechanism is directly credited with causing. Then I would again pursue zeroing in on the mechanism itself. It is a variable speed of light theory. Maxwell long ago established that the speed of light varies with differing mediums. I am not questioning the variation of the speed of light. I do think that he has not accounted for the Lorentz transforms. I have not yet seen him test his mechanism. He knows a great deal. He is well prepared to present explanations of many events, but the mechanism is the key to the theory.

Any input from Peter on this would be appreciated.

James Putnam

pjackson

James, JC.

Slight refinements of your description and understanding; The LT is not a maths function but a real physical mechanism, (that can of course also be approximated by cardinalised symbols). Maximum plasma density is 10^14/cm-3, which relates directly to the energy limit at the minimum possible wavelength at 'gamma'. Here we have the real optical phemonmena 'optical breakdown' (OB) mode, where EM waves can no longer penetrate the plasma 'shock'. As this density is approached the resistance increases exponentially. The Lorentz Factor curve simply plots this relation. (The DFM then directly derives the speed of light from OB density).

EM fields, as they are particle based, are also NOT 'within inertial fields,' they ARE the inertial systems, They form, embody and implement the effects, by the simple mechanism of emitting at c (due to their spin rate) whatever the 'relative arrival speed'. Just touch that cup to your lips.

There's not so much some 'super dominant' frame with others embedded as an infinite hierarchy of absolutely equivalent ones with 'speeds' only wrt thier own local background. Each emitting particle creates it's own, but each galaxy cluster of even universe can be assigned a 'system' frame. Think of a galaxy. It has a 'speed' wrt it's local group rest frame yet that may also be thought of as a 'average' or 'C of M' motion as it has infinitely many other hierarchies within it. No one is special. They're just all different scales.

MOVING CLOCKS. When in similar media all tick at the same rate. Hafele agreed.

Only when being accelerated are physical mechanisms affected. But neither clocks made by man or oscillating crystals make 'time'!

GRAVITY. Less acceleration has less effect on mechanisms. Density does the same. The model suggests that running an alarm clock in treacle or a grandfather clock underwater will slow them down. We know ambient particle density is also directly related to G potential.

As gamma is an oscillation limit, envisage a toroid with 'counter wound' helical accelerations (like nuclear tokamaks and AGN's) then imagine the effect in it's own frame from acceleration. The DFM suggests simply that the Lorentz Factor gamma would apply as the 'advance' motions are limited. This may then slow net spin rate. (I did do a paper on GPS a while ago if you'd like a link, but it seems you haven't yet read the LT paper James?). Does any of that not seem to make sense?

I don't recall declining to pursue conservation, or indeed anything!. The model seems to have no unresolved issues there and resolves the 'virtual electron' problem (they are 'real'!) Do please ask any question on that you wish.

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

I am asking for answers to easy questions at this time. Please let me know if your opinion is that the Lorentz transform for time dilation can model what occurs in the following example:

A clock exists at rest in medium A. Some distance away there is medium B. Medium A has no velocity with respect to medium B. Light leaves the clock and arrives at a particle in medium B. The light is absorbed and re-emitted at local C. The speed of light is different for medium A than for medium B. The speed of light measures locally as c in either medium; however, it is not c for either medium for a remote observer located in medium C.

Focusing on the light arriving from medium A. It is absorbed by the particle in medium B and the emitted by that particle in medium B. The Lorentz transform for time dilation does not apply to this change in light speed.

The clock is than given a velocity directed toward the particle in medium B. Light leaves the clock and is later absorbed by the particle in medium B. It is re-emitted in medium B. The Lorentz transform for time dilation does not apply to the absorption and emission of the light by the particle in medium B.

The clock in medium A is given a velocity directed away from the particle in medium B. Light leaves the clock and is later absorbed by the particle in medium B. It is then re-emitted by the particle in medium B. The Lorentz transform for time dilation does not apply to the absorption and re-emission of the light by the particle in medium B.

James Putnam

Peter,

Thank you for your response.

"MOVING CLOCKS. When in similar media all tick at the same rate. Hafele agreed. ..."

Are you saying that the clocks moving at different velocities in the same medium all tick at the same rate?

"Only when being accelerated are physical mechanisms affected. But neither clocks made by man or oscillating crystals make 'time'! ..."

The clocks are not being accelerated. The questions pertain only to the rate of the clocks. Your answer is not clear to me yet. Perhaps I needed to point out that when I asked if the clocks moving horizontal to the Earth change their rates, that I was looking for a comparison with a clock that was at rest on the Earth. There is no acceleration, so are you saying that all three clocks tick at the same rate?

"GRAVITY. Less acceleration has less effect on mechanisms. Density does the same. The model suggests that running an alarm clock in treacle or a grandfather clock underwater will slow them down. We know ambient particle density is also directly related to G potential."

The question with regard to a clock being raised up in the gravitational field: The clock is not accelerated. It may have been helpful for me to state that the clock is at rest at any point where its rate is observed at various positions as it is raised up. I wanted to know about the effect of the gravitational field. Let say that it is not the Earth but a planet with no atmosphere. This original question can be modified to ask: Does the strength of the gravitational field, disregarding any other effects, cause the clock that is being raised up to change its rate?

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

The physical LT mechanism identified at domain boundaries can model your 'case' but first must be understood and the different cases separated. The DFM transform is principally at the surface fine structure (look up 'plasmons' etc) of the refractive plane. This is Maxwell near/far field Transition Zone, where the particle photoionize to create the MHD 'torque converter' speed change.

Now your scenario, and it's flaw! In the case you give we must say that medium B has a different refractive index. That means a number of things, but essentially lets say a higher density, both at the surface and inside. Now 'zero in'. The speed between any two particles is c. However the 'charge delay' (PMD) means the overall speed is lower. but, contrary to your statement, it's progress is slower with respect to to an observer at rest IN the medium. But of course the observer can't SEE that actual light, he can only SEE the sample that interacts with his lens so 'changes speed' again BEFORE he can compute the wavelength against time (which we call 'measurement'). He may naively think he's measuring wavelength in the medium. We mostly do make that error (c/n lens n~1.38).

I agree; "it is not c for either medium for a remote observer located in medium C.", except that it's not really his 'medium' that matters, it's his 'state of motion'. A dozen remote observers flying in different directions and speeds would each see APPARENT speeds in media B as DIFFERENT (and the same for 'A') because they are not 'measuring' the same thing as the guy at rest in the medium. If they see anything from another medium it's only new individual emissions scattered by the medium particles. It is then an 'optical illusion', not a 'propagation speed'. There are the TWO CASES of 'speed'. Real and Apparent. This corrects an assumption appended to the SR postulates and removes the paradox. No 3rd frames is 'privileged' they're all common, and can all move relatively.

You did not specify observer motion, but the LT does anyway apply to increasing rest medium density. It's negligible for most media, but approaching ion density 10^20/cm^-3, (Optical Breakdown mode; OB) for any light energy not reflected or radiated as heat the propagation speed curve still steepens (gamma). So your para 3 is wrong. Envisage the plasma shock at the nose of the shuttle on re-entry. Once at OB density even radio waves won't penetrate!

When the clock moves (either way) it's EM emissions simply repeat the same near/far field transition locally before propagating at the same speed as before in medium A (but now with Doppler shifted wavelength). The LT applies to BOTH. i.e. if the clock approaches at relativistic speeds, the LT will apply to the transform into the rest frame of medium A. The case at medium B is the same as before, but the wavelength will be different (All transforms obey the same simple rule). The Doppler shift conserves the energy. 'Time' itself never changes, just clock emission artifacts 'after the fact'.

This then matches all observation without paradoxical 'partial time derivatives' or 'virtual electrons'. As I explained, learning to apply DFM dynamics is like learning to drive a car. A nightmare at first if you've only every seen horses but wholly intuitive once understood.

Progress?

Peter

pjackson

James,

Re; Clocks 'moving at different speeds in a medium'. Once we accept the independent 'mechanistic' changes I mentioned; YES; All clocks 'tick at the same rate' when in a rest frame.

As 'speed' is only a relative concept this is equivalent to saying that 'TIME' is not affected by background media moving past mechanical contraptions made by man, or crystal oscillators. We're simply confusing the physical with metaphysical concepts.

"so are you saying that all three clocks tick at the same rate?" Yes. But I also specify not to translate that to mean that physical mechanisms all go at the same speed. Man cannot CREATE 'time' by creating clocks!! So 'rate of passage of time' is neither changed by inertial (relative) motion or medium density. To check my logic I simply asked my 9 year old grandson's view. He can't believe grown ups would think changing clock tick rates or 'messages' changed 'time' itself! He actually doesn't believe anyone sane could think that! Oh for the innocence of youth!

Clocks at rest in G fields. Yes, that is what I assumed. Again there's more than one effect, but we assume only one so get confused. I pointed out that the density gradient matches the G gradient, so on the surface of earth is high gas density and pressure, decreasing with height. That has varying mechanical effect on mechanisms (clocks NOT 'time'). I also identified the 'acceleration' gradient due to the G gradient! You say; "The clock is not accelerated" but you forget it is, by gravity, and at different rates subject to (approximately) the inverse square law. It actually works both ways too; test a grandfather clock in space. If it won't work does it mean we've stopped time!!?? The DFM and my grandson say of course not. The effect on an oscillating particle is the same. It's a physical entity which does not 'create' time.

It appears the reason you didn't understand what I wrote was the normal one, not going back to deep enough fundamental assumptions. Once we look at it from a fresh fundamental angle; 'NO CLOCK 'CREATES' TIME' it all falls into place. Clocks can be changed. 'Time' can't! Dilation and contraction are simple Doppler shifts, and physics is united and free of anomaly and paradox.

Last key point; when Higgs, Unruh or whoever condenses a pair of particles, the 'dark energy' density around it seems to be reduced. If annihilated, we find the (non-zero) local density gradient has levelled back out again. Is that really so shocking or unacceptable? or just unfamiliar? Can you spot any flaw?

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

Singling out just one point that appears to cause confusion in each of my messages: I speak only about the rate at which clocks operate. Yet when I refer to the Lorentz transform for time dilation it apparently looks like I am speaking about time. I am not speaking about time in any of the cases. I am only calling the Lorentz transform by its name. Its name contains the word time. That misuse of the word time is relativity theory's error. To make it clear: When I use the name 'time dilation' I am only using it as a name. I do not believe that time dilates.

James Putnam

Peter,

Tomorrow is the first of October. It occurred to me today that October matters to you and others who ranked well in the essay contest. I will leave my questions dormant until after the winners are announced. I prefer not to risk causing harm during this important time. Good luck.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

I've no concerns about causal links between time and date, or of any possible prejudice. What will be will be. But I agree even more firmly about the lack of causal link between clocks and 'time' signals, or 'time' and rates of clock mechanisms. A simple test confirms this, which, as is my method, needs a return to re-examine foundations afresh.

In inventing the concept and word 'time' we simply divided up the period between cyclic events into certain equal amounts. Let's take the basics of a day and a year; One rotation of Earth, and one orbit of the sun (note that both change slightly!). We invented mechanical contraptions to give us smaller divisions, and counted crystal oscillations to give still smaller ones.

Now a test of the intelligence of any creatures by some roaming aliens may well be; Are we yet adequately intellectually developed to not confuse actual 'periods' with ; 1) the signals emitted from or contraptions, and then; 2) With any change in rate with which those contraptions emit the signals.

A basic check is easy, taking 'seconds' we just have to correlate ticks against days to see if we get 86,400, and 356 of those a year. If the number changes, then it's the artifact that's been altered, not 'time'. If we think that Doppler shifting the emitted artifact signals from clocks 'dilates' time itself! Then we're certainly not ready! The same if we think making clocks go faster or slower changes 'time'. And the same if we think heading back round our orbit on a rocket to effectively reduce the number of orbits also has any effect on rate of 'time'. (If a rate of orbits vary we simply change it (as we do now) or pick another datum).

So do orbit rates slow or speed up when we move a clock up or down in Mars or Earth's gravitational field? Or put it in a rocket, or in treacle? I'd like to help by somehow convincing mankind that the answer is 'no', but it's proving rather trickier than I'd thought. (A 'discrete field' dynamic is then implicit). Yet does anyone reading this really think my above analysis is wrong?

So we may still have a long way to go intellectually. Just a few understanding that means nothing. All the time 'accepted doctrine' says different.. then we need more development. Was my estimate of 2020 too optimistic?

To be clear, nothing in the above contradicts the Postulates of SR, (which Einstein stated contained the 'entire theory' - 1952). It only falsifies some less sophisticated attached assumptions which we now seem too wedded to.

Onwards and upwards.

Peter

Thomas Ray

"So do orbit rates slow or speed up when we move a clock up or down in Mars or Earth's gravitational field? Or put it in a rocket, or in treacle? I'd like to help by somehow convincing mankind that the answer is 'no', but it's proving rather trickier than I'd thought."

Peter, you're confusing the period of orbit with local time. That clocks do speed up or slow down relative to the strength of a gravitational field or state of motion was experimentally proven in 1972.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Peter,

Ok good. The examples I try to set up are intended to focus on individual effects, but it hasn't worked out well yet. I will try to do better. Here is one example that looks for an uncomplicated response about the speed of light. If it needs refinement then I will try again. There is no observer. There is only an event taking place "...in the forest with no one around." :-)

There are two mediums of hydrogen gas that have a common vertical boundary where they are beginning to mix. Both of these gases have pressures sufficiently low that they can be reliably treated as ideal gases. The first medium is less dense than the second medium. A photon, you may substitute a wave, is released by a hydrogen electron inside medium one. It travels inside medium one horizontally toward medium two. The atom that released it was at rest in medium one at the time of release. While the photon remains in medium one it encounters no collisions with other hydrogen atoms. The atoms are far too far apart. While it is inside medium one: Is its speed the same as C in a vacuum or is its speed different from that C?

The photon continues passing through the still narrow mixing zone into medium two where it travels for a significant distance well into medium two without encountering any collisions with the hydrogen atoms in medium two. Is the speed of the photon the C of a vacuum or is it something different? If it is different from that C, is it different from its speed in medium one?

In other words, what is its speed and how does it change or not change during its travel? If this works out easily, then I will add the hydrogen atom velocity in a follow-up example. Thank you.

James Putnam

pjackson

Tom,

I agree that mechanical clocks made by man, and even natural oscillators, can speed or slow subject to the conditions they are under, including acceleration.

What I point out is that it's quite naive to believe that such local physical effects on them and emissions have anything to do with or can 'change' the actual rate of 'TIME' itself!

I'm suggesting that only our incomplete intellectual development allows us the arrogance of thinking so locally. This is because there are TWO things we confuse, and treat as one. There is REAL time, which is only 'DIVISIONS', of the REAL (not 'apparent') orbital rate of the Earth. Then there are other only 'apparent' effects,; on the simple mechanisms we build, and on their propagating emissions.

So of course machines will run faster or slower, but even my grandson laughs when I try to tell him some humans really believe the mechanisms MAKE time itself! or can change REAL time, - so if THEY change then somehow 'time' is being changed! Stand back slow down, and think for a while on that. After all these changes the Earth still rotates and orbits the sun at the same rate, ignorant of our stupidity.

And even then your citation was already proved nonsense long ago, though many indoctrinated fools still cite it. Hafele himself, before trying to publish, said;

"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything" and "the difference between theory and measurement is disturbing." (1971 NY Presentation)

He also pointed out that for a useful test the drift rate of any clock should be constant over the whole period of the test. That bit was left out, as the reviewer (or, rumoured; his professor) wouldn't pass it. Basudeba presented the actual data and fuller story here; See Blog Post 2. But all that does is confirm how misguided some have been. It makes no difference if the clocks changed or not, and wouldn't falsify or verify Einstein's final 1952 SR which; "is entirely contained within the postulates".

Time the head came out of the sand Tom. The truth is a beautiful unified reality.

Peter

Thomas Ray

Peter, because only spacetime -- not time independently -- is absolute and physically real, there is no such thing as "time itself." Nor conversely, "space itself."

The differences in experimentally recorded clock speeds verify this fact of relativity, for when the clocks are brought back to relative rest, they tick at the same rate of proper time.

You write "It makes no difference if the clocks changed or not, and wouldn't falsify or verify Einstein's final 1952 SR which; 'is entirely contained within the postulates'."

It certainly *does* make a difference, since the theory's mathematics *predicts* this result. When are you going to understand that 'entirely contained within the postulates' means that special relativity is mathematically complete?

"Time the head came out of the sand Tom."

Not if that's where the facts are.

Tom

pjackson

James,

Nature only works in real scenario's. 'Speed' is only ever a relative concept between two entities. If you specify speed you MUST specify a 'datum' or a 'rest frame'. To help I'll assume that in this case the gas molecules are ALL in the same rest frame, so provide the datum. No observer needs be present, but I assume we have scalar distances between the particles each side of the 'refractive plane' or more properly 'transition zone' (TZ).

You've also been a bit sloppy mixing molecular gas and plasma (ions/free electrons), ok in this case but would lead to confusion in most other cases if not specified.

Speed is then always C.

How? The emitter dictates the speed, (which is 'micro' emission theory, but certainly NOT equivalent to normal emission theory as the distances in your scenario must be very small for it to describe nature). For most emitters the 'near field' distance to the TZ is a well known function of wavelength, normally no more than ~1 micron for optical lambdas. BUT! ask any antenna engineer and they'll all tell you precisely, but all different answers, as it's wavelength dependent!

To pre-warn you about 'velocity', a 'vector' is as unreal as a 'point' or a 'line', so you should consider only 'optical axis' or 'focus of re-emission' of coherent forward scattering (CFS), which gives apparent source position but has been proved does NOT have to be normal to the causal wavefront - see my last years essay - and last few figs.

You may then be able to deduct an answer to your question? If not just ask away and I'll continue to do my best.

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

There is no mixing of gas with plasma. The rest frame is of course the first medium of hydrogen gas. The molecule that has its electron that releases the photon was stated that it was at rest in the medium. The scenario was the real world. The transition zone is minor mixing of two densities of hydrogen gasses and no collisions occur anywhere along the path of the photon. There is no refractive zone because there is only one photon and it has no interactions with atoms. The distances traveled by the photon can be long because the two mediums are very, close to ideal gas status. The photon can travel a large distance without being absorbed. There is no scattering.

The photon has a velocity because it is traveling in a direction that does not change unless you state that there are effects resulting from atoms that are far from the photon. You stated that the speed part of the velocity of the photon is the same C as in a vacuum. I will take the liberty of stating your answer in a general way. The answer was: The speed of a photon anywhere in any medium is always The vacuum value C unless there is absorption and emission along the path. Do I have your answer correctly stated?

Your also stated that "The emitter dictates the speed..". So now I will change the example slightly by giving the atom that emits the photon a velocity in the horizontal direction toward medium B. There photon then travels a path into medium two without encountering any absorptions by atoms. What is the speed of the photon with respect to medium one. Medium one has no velocity of its own. Its individual molecules are in motion, but the medium as a whole is not moving. There transition zone consists of minor mixing. The photon passes through it without encountering any atoms. It is a rest frame.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

The model is axiomatic. To ask questions of it demands the axioms are followed. You can't set conflicting ones. I pointed out your mixing gas with plasma for good reason. Molecular gas electrons theoretically orbit. Free electrons only exist as/in plasma. If you leave the direct path you'll find the boggy ground again. The electron may be at rest or in motion wrt the 'medium virial frame' so your scenario should have no problem.

I only referred to the 'refractive zone' as that is what the TZ 'is' (standard optics), not necessarily as what it 'does'. i.e In the first case I agreed no interaction there. But we'll return to that as we must stick to nature here not construct impossible scenario's.

You re-characterized my answer which opened room for error again; "anywhere in the medium" can include the (2 in THIS case) emitting and absorbing particles so your statement is wrong. What is correct is "C anywhere between particles" with respect to the last emitter's frame.

Lastly I also stated that in nature the distance (near field depth) cannot be 'long', and explained how it's calculated, which is a function of wavelength. This is for instance partly due to the non-linear Schrodinger equation having the 'spread function', which is poorly understood. Photons' are not some 'ballistic' entity. In quantum and laser optics Huygens Construction is ubiquitous and the only logic matching observation. This is then implicit both in findings and in the model. The emitter does not then emit a 'bullet' but a focussed fluctuation which spreads and interacts with others ('self focussed' only in Bessel beams and partly in lasers).

Now you decided to set your own axiom, suggesting; "The photon can travel a large distance without being absorbed. There is no scattering." With respect that's some other theory James, it uses old assumptions and doesn't correspond to nature. You also make other contrary assumptions, about vectors and the like. You should discuss those with someone else if you wish to insist on them as I'm here describing a different (and far more coherent!) scenario.

Now deciphering mediums 'one', 'two' and 'B', we must again identify two scenario's, one with and one without a 'dark energy' Higgs field condensate frame.

If 'With' a condensate, which is at rest in the medium one virial rest frame, then as soon as the emission (at 'c+v' in that frame) has travelled the near field depth, a fermion pair is instantaneously propagated from the excess energy (over the gamma/c optical breakdown density) in the 'medium' frame, which absorbs the photon of energy and re-emits it at c (Doppler shifted). This is what's familiarly termed 'continuous spontaneous localisation' (CSL). It has then formed a local TX of it's own. That is how they are formed (the particles mainly then instantly annihilate or 'cancel charge' over the Debye length).

If we then run it without a condensate, there are two further choices, either the pair production 'pops up' from 'nowhere' and does the same, or the emissions carry on and do relative c+v into the more dense zone until they meet a particle and are converted to the local c by it's set 'rpm' (sans Doppler shift).

In either event there is a slight rotation of the optical axis (called 'stellar aberration', 'refraction' or sometimes' curved space-time'.

In both cases any observer is simply an absorber, and will find the multi-refringence (orig. found 1921, also found as 'scintillation') caused by some axis being rotated before others in a diffuse medium (where gas is very diffuse there is still always plasma). It may be wrong, but last count there were something over 20 anomalous findings or poorly understood and non-linear effects which are predicted naturally by this model, i.e. the Kerr effects, Interstellar Faraday rotation, ecliptic plans transition, KRR, the kSZ effect etc.

pjackson

Tom,

Change Einstein's meaning however you wish to fit your beliefs. He was disengaging himself from the maths and returning to it's conceptual roots; "space s in motion within space S" He indeed never found exactly WHERE the problem lay, but he did hope those looking would find it, as early as 1944 in fact; "I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find."

Why do you think it's only that particular paper that's been suppressed so severely and can't be found on the web! It's because so many disagreed with changing their beliefs so fundamentally. Face it, you've been duped Tom. I blame the guy who taught you SR. I was taught it as a theory, as the ruling paradigm, with certain assumptions and proofs of certain things, but then also certain apparent inconsistencies with other theory, including the major one over 'time' with QM. That is the correct description correct. You seem to have been indoctrinated with it as a religion!

They may have told you you'll find the answers by putting your head in the sand. You won't. It only makes you shut your eyes to ignore nature.

I consider Einstein left his best genius and work until last. I'm with him.

Peter

[deleted]

Peter, you can't intimidate me on questions of relativity, so you may as well quit trying. You have no idea of what it means for a theory to be entirely contained within its postulates, nor what Einstein meant when he said it of special relativity. It's as completely contained as Euiidean geometry, which Einstein thoroughly understood -- because he is the one who replaced a postulate of Euclid in order to make general relativity also complete.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Peter,

The electron that emitted the photon is not free. I didn't say it was free. It changes one energy level to its base level. The hydrogen atoms are all intact. No free electrons or protons.

Your model absorbs something and re-emits something. That is the part that matters. You recently wrote that the emitted something appears re-quantized. What do you mean by 're-quantized"? Can you please describe its physical description?

I take matters step by step. Simplified examples are understood now to be unacceptable to you. They can never be reality because they are meant to focus.

Is there anything about the actual absorption and re-emission immediately before and immediately after that you wish to add? If the energy arrives in a waveform does it collapse to the one particle or is it divided up among several particles? I don't presuppose what your answer is. Pease just say what you think is happening immediately before absorption.

Please keep in mind that your model is not reality yet. You invited me to consider talking my talk with someone else. Do you wish to not discuss this with me. I will continue to try for one or a few answers at a time. Everything I learn needs to be checked out mathematically. I am not going to try to do that with all of nature at once. Is this a problem?

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

'Twas I, of course.

Tom

pjackson

Tom,

In choosing between cherry picking Einstein's evolving views and taking his final answers I chose the latter. By all means take the former, no intimidation to do otherwise, but to me that not only lacks respect for Einstein but also doesn't lead to the mechanism he sought.

Hold yourself out as some kind of 'expert' on SR if you wish. Einstein was more realistic. I assure you I understand precisely what his earlier musings meant and implied, as did he. You're showing it's you who may not. His views on the importance of "Mathematically complete", whether true or not, are very clear (to those without heads in sand); i.e. "Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose." ....also; "Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts." ... and;

"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. ... "

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore."

And even more importantly, in the 1930's; ; "There is no inductive method which could lead to the fundamental concepts of physics. Failure to understand this fact constituted the basic philosophical error of so many investigators of the nineteenth century. ... "

and;

"Experience remains, of course, the sole criterion of the physical utility of a mathematical construction,"

But a value of humanity is in it's diversity. All ideas should be tested, and perhaps faith will prove a better answer than the scientific method. Who knows?

Peter

Thomas Ray

"Hold yourself out as some kind of 'expert' on SR if you wish. "

You don't have to believe me. I have not only studied the subject for many years, I have quoted you source and chapter from emininent physicists who also know what a mathematically complete theory "entirely contained within its postulates" means.

The only one who disputes this meaning is you.

Tom

Thomas Ray

Peter,

Try and understand what you quoted: "And even more importantly, in the 1930's; 'There is no inductive method which could lead to the fundamental concepts of physics. Failure to understand this fact constituted the basic philosophical error of so many investigators of the nineteenth century. ... '"

*That* is what Einstein means by his theory entirely contained within its postulates. The inductive method he is talking about is exactly what James means by "what the emprirical evidence is telling us." Einstein did not trust inductive conclusions made by examing phenomena -- he chose his system of postulates to completely exclude adding or subtracting anything from the theory.

You, James and John all believe in inductive methods. Doubting Thomas chooses scientific method. :-)

Best,

Tom

pjackson

James,

I didn't suggest you specified free electrons, I pointed out they made life far simpler; "we must simplify as much as possible but not too much" and take great care that what we assume models nature. The DFM 'corresponds' well to nature only because it adheres to that rule. I'm happy to discuss, but you must accept some fundamental hidden assumptions will be found which need removal.

We may consider bound molecular gas, but then need to specify more; Firstly, the absorption/charge time is far greater (so higher charge) giving greater index 'n'. (slower propagation in the medium bulk frame). Then the re-emission is not CFS but more 'all round' scattering. (i.e. we can detect gas and dust from the 'side'). The re-emission and speed between particles is also then NOT at c wrt the electron 'orbital' speed, it is c wrt the gas molecule frame. All the above is know optical science, the last effect first found by Chandrasekara Raman and contributed to his 1930 Nobel. There are other common traps, i.e. electrons, positrons, protons etc absorb different wavelengths etc, (Molecules may also of course absorb and reflect almost ALL the energy!), but we'll run with your 'atoms' for now.

Rather than do all cases, now we have a Higgs mechanism let's incorporate it, so we have fluctuations in a 'dark energy' condensate (which may be particulate if you wish) from which matter condenses (pair production). Quantized re-missions spread out, as explained, (Scrodinger spheres at reducing surface 'bundle' density, which intersect) allowing the energy density equations to predict where intersection energy will peak. But, simply, all emission is at c.

If a body (particle) is then put in the field, to simplify as you asked; it will absorb up to a certain energy (akin to Plancks 'loading theory') and re-emit the focussed 'wave bundle.' My essay explains how these are 3D not just 2D, and driven by orbital angular momentum (OAM), so are toroidal in a 'static' equation, but describing a continuous and 'opening' 'helical path' with translation (on the axis).

So THAT is 're-quantization' (also Google '2nd quantization' etc). Continual focussing and spreading on every interaction. (simpler with the most common form of matter; 'plasma', and much complicated by binding). The trickiest bit may be to imagine Huygens construction of expanding 3D spheres with varying surface densities and moving with OAM (or indeed elliptically with any lateral particle motion). In CFS the sphere surface energy distribution is also axially 'focussed' so highly asymmetric).

I certainly don't claim the model as 'complete' in describing nature! But just point out that unlike any present theory it coherently predicts and corresponds with our observations. In fact not many of the 'pieces' of the puzzle are new, most were laying there in the experimental sciences and astronomy, or swept under the carpet' and ignored by theorists as inconsistent with current doctrine.

Again, if any bits don't seem to correspond please flag them up.

Peter

pjackson

Tom,

"Try and understand what you quoted:" Do you really believe I don't understand inductive and deductive reasoning? I follow and agree with Einstein's far subtler thinking process, and of the dangers of induction (as WELL AS just mathematics), which may be summed up well as 'inference'. He was not referring to Heuristic thought. I use data, and deduction wherever appropriate, in the Scientific Method. I don't rely entirely on manipulating symbols.

But rather than keep getting into the silly argument of; "..no it's me who knows and YOU who doesn't understand", which you can't win, as I do, why don't you show some respect face up to the correspondence of theory with with evidence, which is the final arbiter, and which I've demonstrated consistently. I think I know why, and it's up to you to show me wrong and your beliefs correct. Until then you're words are just the reflection of Pentcho's.

Science is not an election. I quite agree more agree with you than not. It's your claim that that makes it correct which is clearly false logic.

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

Peter,

" ... why don't you show some respect face up to the correspondence of theory with with evidence, which is the final arbiter, and which I've demonstrated consistently."

If you say so. It isn't I whom you have to convince.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Peter,

Please correct this statement from your point of view:

Your particle receives light and releases light. Generally that which it receives arrives at a different speed than the speed of that which it releases. I understand that you often refer to both of the speeds as C. The particle experiences a difference in the two speeds. In one case it would be that the particle receives slow light. In another case the particle would receive light moving faster than the C of the released light. I am speaking only about light being absorbed by the particle and released by the particle. I have not taken anything else into consideration at this time. I am interested in your response to my saying that the particle experiences two different speeds of light.

Thank you.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

As a simplification yes, arrive c+v, depart c. But the holy grail of the DFM mechanism is hidden within the proper description, which requires a new holistic viewpoint: Remember the concept 'speed' is only relative, it is the 'rate of propagation' of fluctuations, giving us the observable number; 'frequency'.

Let's slow it all down and observe as two 'energy peak' positions arrive in turn at a spinning torus (moving in either direction). Now all the torus 'knows' is that they arrived a certain 'time' apart. i.e. if the wavelength was shorter, it would be the same as if the relative speed before arrival was greater (or less).

Think carefully about that to absorb it. It means 'realtive speed before interaction means nothing, it's not a propagation speed in any way. The re-emission speed is set by the 'rpm' of the (triaxial) toroid spin. THAT is then a 'speed'.

So as I've been trying to expalin for 2 years or so; There are TWO entirely different cases of 'speed', one real (propagation) speed, in which proper time applies, and one only 'apparent' or relative, which will then Doppler shift time signals, so only 'co-ordinate time' can be seen.

So in reality, the answer is strictly NO, unless we group REAL and APPARENT speed together, which is where we go wrong. The oparticle will not experiance two speeds, beause it does not have the infomation on the arriving speed and wavelength. This holy grail also allows Copenhagen and unifies SR and QM (with just a little power curve approaching OB energy density called the LT).

We see apparent speeds all day in everyday life, but you now need to look at them with a very new eye, (which so many here have failed to do); Driving down the road, you and the truck coming the other way are both doing REAL speed 60mph. The fact that the total relative speed is 120mph makes no difference to anything, his clock may 'appear' to go faster without problems. It is only when you INTERACT that things change. One or other of you will have to accelerate into the others inertial frame as you can't propagate at different speeds!. If compressible you will thus be Doppler shifted, otherwise known as 'length contraction', or Lorentz contraction (don't try this at home!)

If you haven't had the 'Eureka!' moment yet think about this tonight as it often takes time to replace deeply hidden assumptions. let me know how you got on.

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

My particle sends off electromagnetic energy at the speed C relative to itself. There is a specific quantity of electromagnetic energy headed your particle's way. It was generated by my particle that was moving toward your particle at velocity v. My particle is part of a medium that is moving with my particle. So I see my electromagnetic energy in the form of a wave moving toward your particle at C v.

The electromagnetic wave encounters your particle and is absorbed. Your particle gains energy from the wave. The energy is directly proportional to the frequency of the wave from the perspective of your particle. Your particle doesn't receive anything else from the wave but its energy based upon the frequency received by your particle. Your particle later emits electromagnetic energy equal to that which it received.

My particle put less energy into the wave than what your particle got out of it. In other words, the frequency of the waveform when my particle released it was less than the frequency of the wave as it was received by your particle. My particle was headed toward your particle with a velocity of v and the Doppler effect made it possible for your particle to collect a larger amount of energy from the wave than my particle put into it.

Now I mention to your particle that it just received electromagnetic energy at a speed greater than C. Your particle reports only that it received energy. Your particle explains that there was no effect that it underwent that could be used to establish the speed of the wave. It further makes clear that all waves that are received seem to vary only in energy content. Finally, your particle argues that it releases all of its electromagnetic energy at the speed C. It has never seen evidence for any speed of an electromagnetic wave other than that C.

I insist to your particle that it received the wave at C v. Your particle advises me to prove it. I think it over and decide that there is nothing about the received wave that I can point to that supports my claim. I let your particle know to expect a new experiment where I send it two new waves.

So I send out two new waves from the same medium moving at two different relative speeds of C v1 and C v2. My particle gives them two different values of energy. I have already told your particle how much those quantities of energy would be and the speeds they will be traveling at from my perspective. The waveforms carry forward the two different quantities of energy. They are both absorbed one after the other by your particle.

Your particle responds that the two quantities of energy were not what I predicted. Furthermore, there was no effect by which your particle detected any difference in velocities. Once more your particle asks me to point to an error that your particle may have made. I can't report an error, after all your particle didn't make a mistake. It gave back an accurate report.

Your particle concludes that all electromagnetic energy that it has released has always left at the speed C. It has never seen evidence for any other speed of light. So, the most it is willing to speculate is that it is reasonable to conclude that the waveforms arrived with velocities of C. Your particle is willing to be corrected, but it wants evidence. I don't have a way of sending it evidence that proves my point. Ok?

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

Re; 'My particle has no way of knowing speed prior to interaction'. I did answer this, but note in the wrong box, so now somewhere below.

Your analysis of my proposition is agreed. There is no issue with ebnergy conservation, it's just compressed into less time. Can you explain to Pentcho and Eckard? It does seem hard for most to assimilate.

I repeat my previous reply below;

James,

Spot on (almost); A. There is however no energy conservation issue because considering Time; my particle we'll call 'T' or 'Tom' receives the energy yours (we'll call it R or 'Ray') at different wavelengths, but can only compute frequencies, so 'gets the energy quicker', i.e. the energy it took your 1 second to emit arrives in 0.9 secs' Tom will then have more energy 'per second' than Ray emitted.

You can't give Tom any proof apart from logic, so he will, correctly believe all propagation is at c and has no access to anything other than propagation. So there are two DIFFERENT 'kinds' of speed, real and relative, but Tom makes the wrong assumption as he hasn't access to the information he assumes he has, the relative approach speed.

In practice? the DRM solution; If theorists simply use the (relativistic of course) Doppler shift equation for 'wavelength' not the one for 'frequency', as we've found essential in optics and astronomy. All the scores of paradoxes and anomalies evaporate.

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

"{Your analysis of my proposition is agreed. There is no issue with ebnergy conservation, it's just compressed into less time. Can you explain to Pentcho and Eckard? It does seem hard for most to assimilate."

I did read your response to my description of my understanding of your model. I may give it a try regarding energy conservation because I have asked about it myself and read your responses. I had intended to return for further discussions anyway concerning the mechanism itself. But, rather than start that up at this time, I will see if I can accurately describe energy conservation in connection with your model.

James Putnam

[deleted]

Peter Jackson's model and the conservation of energy:

We begin with two charged particles located a significant distance apart. They are particle A and particle B. Particle B is at rest. Particle A is headed toward particle B with velocity v. Particle A sends an electromagnetic wave in the direction of particle B. The energy of the wave, as represented by the wave's frequency, is E1. The wave is traveling at the speed of C with respect to particle A. It is traveling at the speed of C+v with respect to particle B.

When the wave arrives it becomes Doppler shifted for particle B. The Doppler shift causes the wave to deliver an increased amount of energy E2 to particle B. Particle B then returns to its original state by emitting electromagnetic having energy E2 at the speed of C with respect to particle B. The equation for conservation of energy, as applied to this example, involves only the amounts of energy received and emitted. They are equal so energy is conserved.

Still, the extra large speed C+v does seem to need additional explanation. If the electromagnetic energy sent from particle A is thought of as a photon, then one is justified in wondering how that extra speed should be taken into account when considering energy amounts. Specifically, one is justified in questioning whether a photon carrying energy E1 at the speed of C+v with respect to particle B must have more energy than a photon carrying energy E1 at the speed of C with respect to particle B. It can seem that the extra velocity v should increase the energy of the photon.

The model takes it into account. The photon was traveling at the speed of C+v with respect to B when it was emitted with energy E1 by particle A. The photon, carries the energy amount E1 up to the point that it is absorbed by particle B. The extra speed v causes the photon to be Doppler shifted. The Doppler shift causes particle B to receive the increased amount of energy E2. Particle B then emits energy E2 and returns to its original state. The energy is conserved. The change in energy was caused by the Doppler shift. The Doppler shift is an effect that is recognized as not violating the conservation of energy.

Ok?

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

Almost perfect, but a simpler logical explanation also more completely captures the DFM's physical processes.

Firstly (though non-critical in this case), if we neglect to specify a background state of motion (frame), then 'A' moving towards 'B' is identical to 'B' moving towards 'A'. In fact we must assume rest frame A, with B moving towards A in this case because you specified the emissions move at c wrt A. That may not seem important but it becomes so for consistent rationalisation of all cases.

The other essential parameter is TIME. You are actually wrong to state that B receives 'more energy' that A emitted, because the 'period' B received the energy over is simply shorter. It's the same energy, just more concentrated, so the periods 'each side' of the shorter charge contained less energy, balancing the totals over equivalent time.

All 'particles' are non zero in size (wavelength), and at interaction is an evolution over non-zero time. Both the size and time are so small we've simply missed that fact. Doppler blue shift is then simply a 'compression' of the energy ('length contraction' in SR) and redshift a 'dilation' (including of time signals).

Your description was correct but incomplete so didn't open the door to understanding the consistent logic of nature that otherwise confounds us.

Another key axiom is the exclusion principle; No particle or body of mass is a 'point', and it's space cannot be shared. That is true for ALL bodies. The solar system is then a body with an assignable group state of motion, with almost infinitely many other SEPARATE bodies with it and many more within each of them. The DFM has the same hierarchy as 'propositions' in 'Truth Functional Logic'. Suddenly both maths and science are then logical!

Of course it seems the problem is; we humans aren't. But each person who grasps the logic is one more seed which may bear fruit.

Peter

James Putnam

Hi Peter,

Sorry about that. I have read this before by you:

"The other essential parameter is TIME. You are actually wrong to state that B receives 'more energy' that A emitted, because the 'period' B received the energy over is simply shorter. It's the same energy, just more concentrated, so the periods 'each side' of the shorter charge contained less energy, balancing the totals over equivalent time.

It looks wrong to me so I didn't include it. I do believe that your model does not violate the conservation of energy. That had been a concern of my own in the past when we communicated about your model. I kept what I said minimal to avoid causing confusion. I think what I said is correct. However, it is interesting that you are saying that you are explaining the Doppler effect as not increasing the energy but only compressing the time during which it is received. Is this compressed explanation correct from your point of view?

I hope that what we have written, especially your responses, helps to make what you are saying about your model clearer to the others.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

Contracting a wave contracts it's energy. All waves still travel at c. I mentioned the multiple 'cases', and believe not distinguishing between them is why you think it 'looks wrong'. Ergo;

If two emitters, side by side, each emit one photon per nanosec, but one emits high energy (short 'blue' wavelength) and the other low (red), then because they then ARRIVE at the SAME FREQUENCY, the blue shifted photons will impart a higher charge. This is easy to be confused about as wave peak arrival rate can ALSO be expressed in 'frequency'.

It is then all about 'WAVENUMBER' 'N' (an important conserved quantity in optics). For any given amplitude it in 'N' that defines the energy. So;

In the case I've just described; where the same number of photons are emitted but at different wavelengths, the wavenumber so ENERGY of the blue ones is higher. The same number received as charge are re-emitted.

BUT; In the case previously discussed, where the same emitter photons are compressed or dilated in the new 'discrete field', (so red OR blue), the total wavenumber, so ENERGY, is the same, so is still conserved.

I hope that's distinguished OK and removed any confusion. Does that alleviate your doubts, or was it something else?

Remember there are also other differences, such as amplitude, which affects the ratio, but best to get the above fully assimilated before adding more cases!

I don'y now if anyone else is reading and keeping up with this. If so, you're doing very well! If not just ask questions.

Peter

James Putnam

Hi Peter,

I haven't forgotten. I have a few questions. Wave number is proportional to energy for a constant speed of light? The wave travels away from particle A at speed C with respect to A. When the wave arrives at particle B, its velocity with respect to B is C+v. You repeated that "All waves still travel at C." Are you saying that The wave number and the wave's energy remain associated with the wave's speed C with respect to particle A throughout the complete process including the wave's absorption by particle B? In other words, the wave's relative speed of C+v with respect to particle B is irrelevant for determining either wave number or energy. Both wave number and energy are associated always and only with the speed C with respect to particle A?

The second question is: Are you saying that particle emits energy E1 and particle B absorbs energy E1? The particle B both absorbs energy E1 and re-emits energy E1. One more way of asking this: There is no actual state of energy E2? Energy E2 is a misunderstanding of a compressed E1? And, the effect upon particle B, due to having absorbed the wave, is an effect that is consistent with having absorbed energy E1?

Finally, you mentioned the "new discrete field". Is the correct view that the above example is not valid so long as there is no differentiation between two discrete fields, one belonging to particle A and one belonging to particle B. If this is the case, then are you saying that regardless of the example's use of C+v, the wave is actually received at speed C with respect to particle B? If this is the case, are you saying that the compressed state of the wave as described in my example is apparent but not real, and, the perception of either being compressed or not being compressed is only a matter of one's perspective? For example, the wave when received by particle B appears to be compressed from the perspective of particle A, but, is not compressed from the perspective of particle B?

This message may have grown to the point where it is losing its clarity. That's assuming it began with clarity. :-) I will leave it at this and see what you say in return.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

The secrets? 1: always specify from whose frame the measurement is being made.

2: Always remember that nothing can 'propagate' where it is not. Only where it IS!

3: There are two times; PROPER (PROPAGATION) and APPARENT ('co-ordinate').

So when a wave in a rest frame meets co-moving particle B? The answer to your question is NO. Amplitude may be conserved but distance (wavelength)is compressed, as is the energy, so we may say that, (now measuring when at rest in B's frame) that energy is compressed into a shorter TIME period, because LOCAL propagation is now at a NEW local c. (The old 'wavefunction' has 'collapsed').

So if a pulse has 10 waves and took 1ms to pass (at c) in frame A, once at the NEW LOCAL c in frame b it still has ten waves but will take less time to pass at c (so it is blue shifted).

YOUR PARA 2; Yes. There is no such thing as energy E2 if A emits energy E1. What fools everybody, and I do mean about everybody!, as implied by your description "the wave", is that when that bunch of 10 waves is simply 10 of a constant STREAM of waves, they expect 1miliseconds worth of waves in THEIR frame (B) to be equivalent to 1ms worth of waves in frame A. It is NOT equivalent. A lot more shorter waves fit into 1ms measured from frame B.

The waves can represent TIME (1ms) in frame A, but those time 'signals' are then artifacts 'at large' and are dilated or contracted by evolution of interaction on meeting B. B has no access to their quantum state or relative speed prior to interaction. (DFM). I've stated that many times but few seem able to grasp it's implications.

FINAL, Yes, The fog descended with the double negatives! But I hope I can clear it. Yes; All depends on observers state of motion, but...; also NO, Once the waves are in B's frame 'A' CANNOT MEASURE THEM! They are in some other 'discrete field' (DFM) or 'inertial frame', defined ONLY by a different "STATE OF MOTION". i.e. they have been 'ACCELERATED'.

This next bit is important to understand and assimilate (many understood it from my 2012 essay but it then slipped away); When we measure light in motion in another inertial system we are NOT MEASURING THE LIGHT !!! We are only using a sequence of scatterings from the individual particles in the moving system to estimate the speed. So it's an optical illusion. It APPEARS to be c+v, but it's only a relative (apparent or co-ordinate c+v), which we may change at will by changing our own speed. it is not a real PROPAGATION (PROPER) speed, equivalent to 'PROPER TIME'.

It takes some thought, visualisation and practice. I'm not sure I agree with Akinbo that general intellectual development will allow assimilation pre-2020. Your view?

PS. I agree that what we know as 'distance' and 'time' are fundamental, but neither are quite how we presently see them, and the stuff that makes 'matter' when stirred up (Higgs mechanism) is also fundamental.

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

Thanks for the answers. I will think them through. There is one answer that I am not certain about. I would like to see it stated simply if possible:

Quoting myself "...the effect upon particle B, due to having absorbed the wave, is an effect that is consistent with having absorbed energy E1?" The importance of this question is, of course, that it is seeking empirical confirmation.

I will restate it:

Particle B has an energy state EY before the wave or photon arrives. After it has absorbed the wave or photon, its energy state has changed to EZ. After it emits a wave or photon, equal in energy content to the received wave or photon, particle B returns to its original energy state EY. The question is: Does particle B, when in energy state EZ, have a total energy:

EZ = EY E1

Or:

EZ = EY E2

James Putnam,

pjackson

James,

There are two cases() masquerading as one (this problem permeates all physics).

Case 1. Energy E1 is emitted as a single lone pulse taking time t. So EZ = EY E1

Case 2. Energy E1 is emitted over time t, but with other energy also emitted before and after. Then B will encounter a higher wavenumber during time t because it is in motion towards A. We then have: EZ = EY E2. BUT; B then also emits that higher energy over time t.

We then have two scenario's for the emissions;

2a; If propagating in B's frame, they will REMAIN blue shifted so higher energy.

2b; If then propagating in the 'approach' frame (A), they will redshift back again, to the same condition as when A emitted them.

The 'shift back' in 2b would need a further '2-fluid' particle interaction, which is the standard matter surface plasmon or near/far field TZ mechanism. I won't discuss any more cases as they may confuse. Those are the basic DFM two.

I hope that helps. E is always conserved in total except 'apparently' when particles are condensed and annihilated, but it only becomes 'dark'. (Gravity in the DFM then looks like simply the difference in local dark energy density while a 'mass' state exists, but the mass interaction implements the (JM) axis rotation appearing as 'path curvature') due to toroid EM field particle orientation (see last years essay).

Well there was quantized gravity just sitting there ...so how could I not?

Best wishes

Peter

[deleted]

Peter,

This: "Case 1. Energy E1 is emitted as a single lone pulse taking time t. So EZ = EY E1" looks to me to be representative of the conditions in the example. But, let me repeat the example as I intended it to be:

There is a particle A and a particle B. They are distant and have a relative velocity v moving toward each other. Particle A emits a wave or photon with energy E1 toward the approaching particle B. The wave or photon leaves particle A at the speed C with respect to particle A. Later the wave or photon arrives at particle B. Particle B absorbs the wave or photon. As a result of absorbing the photon, particle B is raised to a higher total energy. That new total energy is the sum of EY E1?

I understand that reality is not simple. What I am looking at is the energy state of particle B after it absorbed the wave or photon and before it emits its own wave or photon. That higher energy state should be empirically verifiable. Perhaps it is an electron that was precisely lifted from energy level one of a hydrogen atom to energy level two. Then later, the electron drops back down to energy level one by emitting a wave or photon of equal energy content to that which lifted the electron up.

This example results in observable empirical evidence for the amount of energy released by particle B. If, in your view, the empirical evidence sought demands that the example must include unique discrete fields, one for particle A and one for particle B, that is ok. I can follow that. I am interested in nailing down the example that will fit with the empirical evidence recorded by an observer who has no velocity with respect to particle B.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

Let's then play that observer at rest with particle B. First I agree B 'contains' energy Ey + E1 for the instant before re-emission. We must be careful about assumptions that go with "contains" but lets imagine we can 'see', count and time the waves both approaching B and 'in' B representing each peak as a tiny spaceship, so approaching in bunches of 10, each with energy 1/10th E and in line.

With B beside us we're heading at constant speed v towards A. Some of the bunches of 10 go past us travelling the other way (propagating) at c. One bunch then hits B. As each of the 10 ships interacts with B the space between them closes up because the first ones are 'carried' back towards the next. They then propagate through B at c with respect to B (and us watching).

So they've now 'slowed down' compared to the bunches going past, and are closer together. But B still now only 'contains' Ey+E1. Then they're re-emitted, at precisely c wrt B, which reverts to Energy Ey.

The 'electron shell' model works just fine, even if not representative of the physical process. There is nothing mysterious about calling A and B 'discrete', they are 'discrete' (or 'different' and mutually exclusive) kinetically. i.e. they are in a different state of motion. So all existing empirical evidence supports the model. In fact the model better fits the empirical evidence because all paradoxes and anomalies are explained (pick any one you wish) and 'virtual electrons' are not required. They are real, but in 'some other' state of motion.

So cars passing you going the other way on the freeway can now have TWO 'speeds', a proper-gation speed (say 60mph), and a 'relative' speed, which also depends on your speed. That one only becomes important, but is then the ONLY important one, when you meet head on! (interact).

(Don't try that at home, you should take my word for it).

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

Please describe the Pound-Rebka experiment using your model.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

Pound-Rebka gets a mechanism consistent with QM and SR's postulates. None of the 3 previous paradoxical and non-physical offerings do so. (This solution is given on condition that the discrete field model [DFM] is cited when reproducing it).

As space-time is implemented by electron interactions in the DFM in the way recently confirmed by VLB Array findings, the effect is a simple Doppler shift due to density gradient.

Interestingly this solution, first found as 'birefringence' by Chandraseckara Raman in his 1923 work (1930 Nobel Prize) can also finally explain why Dayton Miller got such different interferometer results at different altitudes up Mount Wilson (I've discussed this elsewhere, but again please cite the DFM).

The density of massive bound particles increases significantly with height (80% of scintillation happens in the lower 1km!). While the speed of light between each particle remains at c, the refractive index of the medium increases towards the ground, which means the 'time spent' in charge and re-emission increases. As in the example above this bulk 'slow down' causes a 'compression' of the wavelength (blue shift) on the way down, and dilation (red-shift) on the way up.

The SR postulates are conserved as C is always local, and QM is consistent with the postulates time signals will also be compressed and dilated, evolving ('collapsing') the wavefunction each time, and making the observers lens/antenna particles part of the system which does so.

But remember this; The only "observable" is from computation against time, which is 'frequency,' so care must be taken when introducing relative motion (kinetics) to the mechanism. We cannot and do not 'measure' wavelength, but have to infer it (and currently err by assuming the wrong datum).

We've now done almost half of fundamental physics!

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

I was looking for something more specific in detail much like one would read about it from a textbook for students that have to solve mathematical problems of the same or similar types.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

The maths are simple. The relativistic Doppler equation for wavelength describes the (DFM) transition, including the LT, almost perfectly. We just need to remember that maths is only ever a good approximation of nature. (i.e. specks of dust and temperature fluctuations in the tower will change each reading).

In any case I'm not a mathematician. That was where I started, and only just escaped through the wardrobe back to reality before becoming trapped at Professor Dodgsons' Mad Hatters tea party!

I did study other maths and symbol manipulations. I think Mayan representation was better than Arabic, not least because it died out with the civilisation before being destroyed by the = sign. Tarot cards are also useful, having the advantage that they're all recognised as different so can't fool us into thinking otherwise.

I made a vow, to use my l/r brain to it's full as a visualisation, analysis and rationalisation tool, not as a calculator. Einstein, Wheeler etc. seemed to agree. We all have to specialise!

How about a deal. I'll do the conceptual theory and logic, you see if you can work out the maths I describe to approximate it with symbols. Is that fair? (but I admit you'll also find some basic in my essays and end notes).

Peter

James Putnam

"The relativistic Doppler equation for wavelength describes the (DFM) transition, including the LT, almost perfectly. We just need to remember that maths is only ever a good approximation of nature. (i.e. specks of dust and temperature fluctuations in the tower will change each reading)."

Ok. Can you discuss your (DFM) transition? How did you establish that the (DFM) transition fits the relativistic Doppler equation? I am wondering about an explanation that does not use the relativistic Doppler equation. Can you show that the (DFM) transition causes an effect on wavelength consistent with relativity theory without involving relativity theory in the explanation? I was assuming that your model did not rely upon the pre-existence of relativity theory. I guess the best way of saying this is to ask if your model stands on its own.

I know the math of the Pound-Rebka experiment. I chose it because it is not one of my examples. Also, it has been worked through again and again to exhaustion. It does involve a frequency change that is accompanied by an energy change. E1 is emitted and E2 is received. This E2 is not necessarily the same magnitude or sign as it represented in my previous example. There is no carryover from that previous example.

This message pertains only to the pound-Rebka experiment. The experiment involves very precise magnitudes of energy. The math is far more than an approximation. Yes it is true that the math calculations cannot be exact, but they are very good for establishing accuracy of variations in energy.

Could you maybe talk it through using non relativistic Doppler effects, E1, and, if it is relevant an E2 and show how your model produces a result that is consistent with relativity theory. If your model depends upon relativity theory for its support, then that is a good enough point to make.

James Putnam

Peter,

Thinking your messages through, is your model intended to be added onto relativity theory and complete it by providing the mechanism needed to account for the constant speed C? I know that you credit it with unifying relativity theory and quantum theory. It is the mechanism of your model that you credit with accomplishing that also. If so, then I have been looking for something different in it. And, if so, your audience is mainly relativists whom you need to agree that your model does complete relativity theory. Is this correct?

James Putnam

Eckard Blumschein

Peter,

Tarot cards? I don't like any hocus-pocus. That's why I don't trust in your local-global trick to reconcile Einstein relativity with common sense including quantum technology. I agree with James on that you are addressing an audience of predominantly "relativists". This might seem clever; it doesn't convince me.

Let's assume an emitter or re-emitter of light in empty space that is moving wrt an assumed reference

a) with +v b) with -v. What does it mean when you are saying the light propagates locally with c? If you refer to the assumed reference then you must agree with all other proponents of emitter theory including Pentcho on c+v or c-v.

The same dilemma are facing those who ascribe velocities +V or -V to a receiver.

Sound propagates with reference to the medium air. Why did Michelson fail to measure the motion of earth relative to an assumed stationary space?

My answer is this: As does sound, the speed of light does not depend on the velocities of emitter or observer. While sound waves depend on the velocity of their medium, light waves in vacuum merely depend on the RELATIVE to each other positions of emitter and receiver at the moments of emission and reception, respectively.

My explanation doesn't need length contraction, local time, and the like. Can you understandably explain your local-global doctrine too?

Eckard

James Putnam

Peter,

Thinking more about your model, I referred to your model as a variable speed of light theory. You stated that it wasn't. I was looking at the different speeds that light was moving at, C and C+v. However, I may now understand why you do not consider it a variable seed of light theory.

First it is generally an acceptance of relativity theory as a viable mathematical description of how the universe operates. I think that you do hold reservations about the correctness of the interpretations of length contraction and time dilation. But, you hold that the effects do both occur in your model and are representable mathematically by the Lorentz transforms.

You are introducing a particle mechanism for absorbing and emitting electromagnetic energy that you propose completes relativity theory by removing the mystery of the constant nature of C in relativity theory. Your two speeds C and C+v do not conflict with the practical use of a single constant C. The reason is because C+v produces no effect by which its magnitude is made meaningful or even verifiable.

When waves or photons are received by a charged particle, their velocities are not only unknown, due to no discernible effects by which to distinguish themselves, but also have no relevance physical or otherwise to the reception of electromagnetic energy. It is as if all velocities are transformed away in favor of a single theoretical velocity that can be of the theorists' choosing.

In other words, It is known that there is a velocity of arrival for the simple reason that energy is arriving, but the velocity of arrival can be assumed to be any value without affecting the outcome because the velocity does not affect the outcome. Therefore, the speed of arrival will not conflict with a theory that holds that the speed of light is always C.

The result is that your model incorporates relativistic effects, does not conflict with the theoretical use of a constant C, yet introduces discrete fields where the speed of light does in fact vary. The conclusion being that the variation of the speed of light is real but irrelevant for the mathematical representation of the model.

It seems that you are pointing out that the speed of light varies, and, that those variations are observable, but, that those variations, by virtue of their playing no discernible role in the delivery of electromagnetic energy, are automatically excluded in attempts to mathematically model the delivery of electromagnetic energy.

Ok?

James Putnam

pjackson

Eckard,

I propose that Tarot, Arabic and Mayan symbols are equivalent. But we added an = sign to Arab symbols to ensure maths then couldn't describe nature as nothing is precisely equal in nature. The proposed new falsifiable law in my essay hasn't been falsified. Do have a go.

I agree your explanation covers one case, but there is more than one case empirically demonstrable, it can't explain Doppler shift, it offers no more 'physical explanation' than SR. All the DFM does is propose that the local flow of space is equivalent to the local flow of all fluid mediums we know, including air and water. The trouble is we always over-simplify so can't understand.

i.e. You refer to the speed of sound in a medium, but have ignored that local elements of the medium are in local motion. If the wind blows hard, then the speed of sound if DIFFERENT each way wrt the frame of the emitter, and ALL arbitrary receivers! Similarly water flows in complex bulk bodies, but the speed of light in water is always 140,000mps LOCALLY! So if one path is against a flow, the signal will arrive later, just as with air.

So your idea can't then equally and logically resolve all cases, either with the same or different emitter motion in each case, viz.

a) Both emitter and receiver moving 'into' the wind (slower propagation speed/time)

b) Both emitter and receiver moving 'against' the wind (faster propagation...).

The complexity is that fields (i.e. the atmosphere) has a 'locally at rest' bulk frame, so is 'dragged', and has local domain limits. Thus the M&M results. SO: Radio waves emitted from the surface of Earth DO 'C' (or c/n) WRT EARTH within Earth's local domain. They then change speed to do c wrt the sun (actually solar wind frame) withing the heliosheath, where they change to c wrt the Galaxy frame. This is precisely what astronomers (and NASA) find and struggle to explain as they don't discern between the discrete field motions.

Even then there's an additional 2nd order change, as the atmosphere rotates and the ionosphere doesn't. Look at Dan Gezari's lunar laser ranging analysis discrepancies and there is the tiny difference. Also read (2004 Nobelist) George Smoot's kinetic analysis of the CMB frame change hierarchy between Earth/Sun/Galagy/Local Group/Cluster etc and the main filament 'flow' toward Centaurus. He couldn't resolve the logic. The DFM does, for all cases. c is simply a 'propagation speed' LOCALLY everywhere, so in fact the postulates themselves would be correct.

The final key is that the 'approach speed' and wavelength are not accessible to a detector. A lens or antenna can only obtain an amplitude and 'time' between wave peaks, to then compute to a 'frequency'. But by the time it detects that time it has changed due to detector motion. That is the important new (DFM) understanding. EM waves propagate at c (c/n) locally in the lens and antenna.

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

James,

Essentially the DFM gives SR and the LT mechanisms and renders them compatible with GR and QM. In a way has no particular relevance to SR any more than science as a whole i.e; "It is what it is". I actually don't agree ANY current mathematical description of how universes operate is precise, but maybe good approximations. Interpretations of both Relativity and QM just need to adjust slightly to be compatible. Contraction and dilation are Doppler effects, but the LT gamma curve has a specific (and known!) cause and mechanism described in the relevant paper.

"C+v produces no effect by which its magnitude is made meaningful or even verifiable." Almost true, but in the same way we can see light bouncing off the car passing the other way we can sometimes 'track the progress' of light pulses propagating at c (cloud chambers etc) which will be THEIR c, plus OUR OWN v wrt the medium of propagation.

Your para 4 again needs modifying; c is NOT arbitrary. It is a real propagation speed, limited by the medium (so always locally real). If a detector does not know its own speed wrt the medium it can't compute much else. We currently guess (wrongly). Para 5 is then wrong, because we CAN approximate our own speed, or local rest state, and check propagation time over distance. c is pretty accurate, but arbitrary speed of light wrt us constantly changes on the way here subject to medium motion (resolving a shedload of anomalies).

Para 6. Not entirely irrelevant mathematically except for the simplest case. Arrival time changes (lensing delays of over 3 years, of the same light each side of a rotating cluster!!).

Last Para. To say "the speed of light varies" is wrong. The speed of individual LIGHT SIGNALS vary with respect to arbitrary co-moving frames, but is always PROPAGATION SPEED c in each local discrete field frame, so wrt an observer at rest IN that field. So apart from these notes I agree your overall perception is correct. Can you analyse how best you think it may be described for others? After 3 essays, it seems to all be grasped while reading but be too 'multi component' to assimilate. Thanks. Perhaps it needs a jingle!

In wider terms (excluding the cosmology etc) Maxwell's equations for co-moving fields can then drop the 'metaphysical "partial time derivative" because the near/far field transform is simply a speed change between REAL field, implemented by the 2-fluid TZ plasma, both sides emitting at local c. A lodda people may not like that! But the simplifying logic and equation emerges impeccably and I'm sure Maxwell and Heaviside would have loved it (and kicked themselves). It also resolves all the issues for antenna engineers, resolves 'kinetic reverse refraction', aberration of light, non-linear optics and Fraunhoffer Refraction, recovers Snell's Law, and endows 'virtual' electrons with real mass via the Higgs mechanism!

Apart from those and the others is doesn't seem to be of much use.

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

Maybe I could help, maybe not. You need to understand that I would begin by discussing your style of presentation first. I see your messages as not giving clear direction. The direction is there from your own perspective of what it is that you want to communicate. But as a reader, I don't want to be put through the gauntlet that you set up with so much of the content of your messages. It happens that I decided to disregard much of what you say in favor of trying to discover your important points. I don't know that your interested in my evaluation, but lets find out, here is a quick test:

"Last Para. To say "the speed of light varies" is wrong. The speed of individual LIGHT SIGNALS vary with respect to arbitrary co-moving frames, but is always PROPAGATION SPEED c in each local discrete field frame, so wrt an observer at rest IN that field."

For me, this is a point without a point. Light speed varies period. It measures as C locally period. Neither statement is wrong. They are not in conflict. When I read a response like the one above, I say to myself "So what?" My last paragraph said:

"It seems that you are pointing out that the speed of light varies, and, that those variations are observable, but, that those variations, by virtue of their playing no discernible role in the delivery of electromagnetic energy, are automatically excluded in attempts to mathematically model the delivery of electromagnetic energy."

I read it again now and it still says, for me, something either very relevant and central to your model or something very wrong, but, that something is not your point that appears to not be a point "To say "the speed of light varies" is wrong."" Normally, I would just read past parts of your messages, such as this one, in the interest of getting to parts that matter. However, if you are interested in my feedback, it would include comments about your choices of content in your messages.

It would also include pointing out where your model, from my perspective, has not fulfilled your claim of meeting all challenges. The point I am making is not that my opinion establishes whether you are right or wrong, it rather is that your opinion that you have fixed physics remains to be debated. I suspect that your other readers would have similar perspectives. Your model looks clearer to me but does not yet look correct to me. It is a problem that will recur in our communications.

You might consider focusing your messages rather than attempting to demonstrate that you can cover all bases. You say that you don't believe that "...ANY current mathematical description of how universes operate is precise,...". So who does? What I wrote was "First it (Your model) is generally an acceptance of relativity theory as a viable mathematical description of how the universe operates." If this is not the case, then that is what I am interested in reading about.

I could attempt to cover all bases also, but, my message would get bogged down in attempting to refute more parts of your message. My opinion is that those parts are not as important to me as they seem to be to you. They are not what I want to invest my time in, so I just read past them.

Maybe the content of this message seems a waste of your time. So, what do you think?

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

That's quite helpful. There's good reason for each more precise specification I give, but obviously I can't explain those each time. Perhaps you're right and some misunderstanding is inevitable so I shouldn't try to avoid it.

For instance; your main point on my comment; "To say "the speed of light varies" is wrong. The speed of individual LIGHT SIGNALS vary with respect to arbitrary co-moving frames, but is always PROPAGATION SPEED c in each local discrete field frame, so wrt an observer at rest IN that field."

The reason I clarify that is because I more than once made the mistake of NOT doing so in a description, which led to irretrievable misunderstanding. The way our brains work is to 'fit' concepts onto pre-formed neural patterns. So when most people read; "the speed of light varies" they connect and throw it into the 'VSL' bin. Once in there it can never be retrieved, and as to most that bin is in the 'nonsense' corner the situation is irretrievable. Any paper approximating that statement is then also automatically 'binned'. I had that on early peer reviews. You may not be that simplistic, but you're probably aware most are.

So I now take more care to express it as I re-phrased it for you (far simpler for me to write it than to 'correct' you). You couldn't see the importance but it's there.

Imagine the problem in physics as a complex tangled bit of string. The approach you suggest it the easy and common one; pull on one of the loose ends. LOOK! that bit's now not tangled. Brilliant! Except it's just made it almost impossible to untangle and rationalise the rest.

Any real solution must be at least as complex as the entanglement. It needs careful thought and study of each piece. You can't 'read over' without thinking; why? What IS the difference? Which is why I suggested mankinds intellectual development may not be adequate yet. We prefer simple 'sound bites'. The simplicity of the string emerges only once that work is done.

Then you also introduce the concept "fixed physics". All I did was list the anomalous effects that have become consistent and coherent, showing the way ahead on unravelling the mess. The full solutions for each are all described for inspection and falsification. Nobody has yet found falsity. But each requires a NEW and DIFFERENT understanding or assumption to rationalise, and even encompasses and rationalises (Godel) 'uncertainty'! To me this is the very 'ANTITHESIS' of some final 'fixed' answer.

Re; You say that you don't believe that "...ANY current mathematical description of how universes operate is precise,...". So who does?" That was all clearly defined and rationalised in my essay, which you said you'd read! I define the 'Dirac line' and logic 'A~A' in full living colour! it simply confirms Godel is correct, and maths can prove nothing with finite precision, the key to uncertainty being in the area we presently can only hear as 'noise', the inverse probability distribution between binary cardinalisations 0,1. That key provides the 'code' to untangle the knotted bundle.

Sure that solution can't be understood instantly, that is why we need intellect, and not to 'read over' the more precise specification required. But I can short cut that problem by demonstrating the mechanism's predictive and resolving power with actual anomalous effects.

You may join others saying you 'don't believe' it does so, but POINT TO ONE! this is not religion but science! There they are. Read them and find a flaw! Take KRR, or the LT for instance. DFM LT Mechanism. Do the mechanisms not successfully produce the observed effects? Nobody's identified ANY error! I wish someone would! I actually refrain from pushing it's successes as people just give up and revert to beliefs.

I do take on board what you say James, and thank you, but I've been down the road of careless oversimplification many times, always ending up in the mud of mis-understanding. As Einstein; 'It needs to be simple, but not TOO simple.' Very tricky! Even the maths looks 'too simple'! Perhaps only sensational coups get attention. But the territory is far from fully explored. P'raps I should just keep going till 2020?

Peter

James Putnam

Peter: "For instance; your main point on my comment; "To say "the speed of light varies" is wrong. The speed of individual LIGHT SIGNALS vary with respect to arbitrary co-moving frames, but is always PROPAGATION SPEED c in each local discrete field frame, so wrt an observer at rest IN that field."

"The reason I clarify that is because I more than once made the mistake of NOT doing so in a description, which led to irretrievable misunderstanding. The way our brains work is to 'fit' concepts onto pre-formed neural patterns. So when most people read; "the speed of light varies" they connect and throw it into the 'VSL' bin. Once in there it can never be retrieved, and as to most that bin is in the 'nonsense' corner the situation is irretrievable. Any paper approximating that statement is then also automatically 'binned'. I had that on early peer reviews. You may not be that simplistic, but you're probably aware most are."

"So I now take more care to express it as I re-phrased it for you (far simpler for me to write it than to 'correct' you). You couldn't see the importance but it's there."

"Imagine the problem in physics as a complex tangled bit of string. The approach you suggest it the easy and common one; pull on one of the loose ends. LOOK! that bit's now not tangled. Brilliant! Except it's just made it almost impossible to untangle and rationalise the rest."

Me: When we get to your model, your model is rests on a particle's properties, and, light arriving at one speed and leaving at another, it will be my pulling on one narrowed down focused problem.

Peter: "Any real solution must be at least as complex as the entanglement. It needs careful thought and study of each piece. You can't 'read over' without thinking; why? What IS the difference? Which is why I suggested mankinds intellectual development may not be adequate yet. We prefer simple 'sound bites'. The simplicity of the string emerges only once that work is done."

Me: I see your content as being more directed at listing as much supporting evidence as you can muster to be convincing based upon numbers. But, that evidence has rarely been helpful in responding to my questions. I credited you quite some time ago with arriving here well prepared. My questions have to do with getting specific answers. Maybe other readers see it your way. that should be helpful to you. I find that it requires patience on my part to move the discussion toward the specific answer that I am looking for.

I understand that nothing happens in this universe that does not affect everything else eventually, and that everything discussed is affected now or eventually by everything else happening. But, it is not necessary to read through a list of your view of many things that you find support your view. it is possible to discuss that results of the Pound-Rebka experiment withot it. It is possible to discuss the various speeds of light and question your claim that it isn't a variable speed of light theory. Your desire to avoid being lumped in with variable speed of light theories and their reputation isn't going to be solved by saying that your variable speed of light is really a constant speed of light.

Peter: "it does so, but POINT TO ONE! this is not religion but science! There they are. Read them and find a flaw! Take KRR, or the LT for instance. DFM LT Mechanism. Do the mechanisms not successfully produce the observed effects? Nobody's identified ANY error! I wish someone would! I actually refrain from pushing it's successes as people just give up and revert to beliefs."

Me: Your remark "You may join others saying you 'don't believe' ..." is an example of requiring patience of my part. You must understand nothing about what I represent.

I cited the Pound-Rebka experiment. A photon of energy E1 is released. That photon upon arrival has energy E2. Your answer needs to precise. The all else can wait. The answer comes first, then comes whatever you can add on to strengthen your case.

Returning to a question I brought up at least a year ago. What I was looking for was the application of your model to the Compton effect? Maybe, I just don't recall clearly. Perhaps you answered it. but, it would be helpful if you would give it again.

Your explanation of the Lorentz transforms as developed with your model are not the Lorentz transforms. There is a difference between saying that a waveform compresses and saying that an object compresses and that time slows.

I gave you some indication of the impression that your messages make for me as the receiver. Maybe others see them as fitting with your own view of them. That should work out in your favor. I find that I have to show patience.

My point that I quoted and thought was either very important or very wrong was not addressed.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

The error of missing the 'speed change' from calculations is indeed very important I agree, as discussed at some length in the last two essays. The change required modifies Maxwell's equations, removing the 'partial time derivative', 'virtual photons' and 'Fraunhoffer refraction' to recover logic and Snell's Law (currently violated at the near/far field TZ). Nobody has falsified or commented on the simple DFM mathematics (except Tom who fears it 'changes SR').

Simplification.

I do understand and mostly agree your point, but that's where I started, with no success as people just dismissed it citing effect after effect it looked 'inconsistent with.' Perhaps you're right. Now I can fully retort I should simply revert.

Speed 'Change'.

Your point is well taken, but I've found conceptualization far easier and sustainable approaching the whole though process as change in the relative speed of A)'Discrete Fields' as different inertial systems/frames. Once the imagination grasps 'regions of space' moving, as Einstein specified, then the concept B) of light changing speed to obey c when moving between them is suddenly wholly intuitive. I've found far better long term comprehension with that initial approach. B) before A) seems to confuse. Perhaps always the two in tandem may be needed.

LT,

If you look carefully at Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction (originally of a 'wave bundle' particle). what i describe is indeed the original LT. As with Special Relativity I certainly agree it is NOT the same as the current understanding or interpretation! The mechanism does however produce the exact Lorentz factor gamma curve and all effects, so as it does with SR, it replaces the 'theoretical mathematical interpretation' with a real underlying mechanism.

Your views are indeed helpful, thank you. I'll have to remind myself about the Compton effect and revert. I'm sure I disagreed with an assumption and found the later Raman scattering mechanism resolved all issues. By all means re-state the effect and problem as you view it.

Best wishes.

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

Peter: "The error of missing the 'speed change' from calculations is indeed very important I agree, as discussed at some length in the last two essays. The change required modifies Maxwell's equations, removing the 'partial time derivative', 'virtual photons' and 'Fraunhoffer refraction' to recover logic and Snell's Law (currently violated at the near/far field TZ). Nobody has falsified or commented on the simple DFM mathematics (except Tom who fears it 'changes SR')."

James: I read this before but didn't think it mattered until I understood your model. I may or may not yet understand it. So lets test my understanding with one of the points mentioned above for now. Why does missing the 'speed change' remove the 'partial time derivative' from Maxwell's equations? I am deliberately not posing any idea from myself so as to not muddy up your response with corrections. I am interested in your mechanical description of the wave and what is it about the wave that removes the partial time derivative? If you think that my question is incorrectly stated, then you are certainly invited to clarify it.

Peter: "Simplification."

"I do understand and mostly agree your point, but that's where I started, with no success as people just dismissed it citing effect after effect it looked 'inconsistent with.' Perhaps you're right. Now I can fully retort I should simply revert."

James: Actually, I protested too much. Your supporting evidence and arguments are important. It is just that when the message gets filled with them, I find it distracting. Perhaps if they were appended to the message while the message concentrated on the mechanical essentials of your model. I don't know if others respond the same as myself. What I do know is that I need to be able to successfully visualize the mechanics. If I can't do that, then all the supporting material is not really of immediate interest. I am not saying that material has no value. It certainly does after your model is understood and appears logical from the mechanical perspective. I wonder consistently about the abrupt change in the speed of light taking place mechanically. I would get to that after I was comfortable with what happens before and after. Just by mentioning this, it probably begs for a preliminary response from you. For example, you might want to make clear that 'abrupt' is not how you describe it. Your comprehensive description is important, but I need to satisfy myself that everything is logically connected and for me that is a step by step process.

Peter: "Speed 'Change'."

"Your point is well taken, but I've found conceptualization far easier and sustainable approaching the whole though process as change in the relative speed of A)'Discrete Fields' as different inertial systems/frames. Once the imagination grasps 'regions of space' moving, as Einstein specified, then the concept B) of light changing speed to obey c when moving between them is suddenly wholly intuitive. I've found far better long term comprehension with that initial approach. B) before A) seems to confuse. Perhaps always the two in tandem may be needed."

James: To me this seems to be easily grasped in general. The point that requires detailed explanation for me is "...light changing speed to obey c when moving between them ...". I thought I could now follow your logic, but this statement needs explanation, otherwise as a reader I am halted. For me it is crucial to follow the mechanics. Its the specifics of the mechanics that support your statements that matter. Referrals to what Einstein said is not of immediate interest or even helpful to me. I would expect that your delivery could become bogged down in disputes over what Einstein either said or meant. I said 'bogged down' because for me the important information is the mechanism and its relationship to the speed of light. I expect revolutionary changes to be a break with what has been said or believed. That is not a problem for me as a reader.

A continuation of this message follows,

James Putnam

Peter,

Continuing:

Peter: "LT,"

"If you look carefully at Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction (originally of a 'wave bundle' particle). what i describe is indeed the original LT. As with Special Relativity I certainly agree it is NOT the same as the current understanding or interpretation! The mechanism does however produce the exact Lorentz factor gamma curve and all effects, so as it does with SR, it replaces the 'theoretical mathematical interpretation' with a real underlying mechanism."

James: The arm of the interferometer contracts For Fitzgerald. Lorentz's electron contracts. Lorentz's 'local time' differed from one uniformly moving system to another. The Lorentz transforms as understood today are not the Lorentz transforms of Lorentz. They are the Lorentz transforms of Einstein. It is the supporting evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity, and, how that evidence obeys Einstein's Lorentz transforms that matters. Time dilation applies to clock's, but is also extended to apply to the property of time. Length contraction applies to space and that which is contained in it. The two of them together in general relativity form spacetime. The Lorentz transforms relationship to spacetime is the target. At least that is how I see it. That is the sort of thing that I end up looking for your view on when reading your messages. I prefer reading about the contrast, if there is a contrast and the basis for it, between your model and the general theory of relativity.

Can you explain your supporting evidence for this part of your statement: "... The mechanism does however produce the exact Lorentz factor gamma curve and all effects, so as it does with SR, ..."? It is the Lorentz factor gamma curve in particular that I am wondering how you established your fit to it?

Peter: "...By all means re-state the (Compton) effect and problem as you view it."

James: It is a fresh start on the Compton effect. My concern was with how your model accounts for the change of energy that occurs for near misses between photons and charged particles? What role does your mechanism play in the situation where absorption followed by emission is not absolute and does not involve direct contact? By 'direct contact' I am referring to how your model, thus far as I understand it, involves absorbing the photon within the particle.

James Putnam

Eckard Blumschein

Peter,

I tend to agree, nothing in nature is precisely equal in every respect.

You wrote: "your explanation can't explain Doppler shift". I object.

You wrote: "local flow of space". I see neither a necessity nor a reasonable possibility of the space to flow.

You wrote: "You refer to the speed of sound in a medium, but have ignored that local elements of the medium are in local motion. If the wind blows hard, then the speed of sound if DIFFERENT each way wrt the frame of the emitter, and ALL arbitrary receivers! Similarly water flows in complex bulk bodies, but the speed of light in water is always 140,000mps LOCALLY! So if one path is against a flow, the signal will arrive later, just as with air."

I did not at all extend the discussion on the speed of light in media.

You wrote: "So your idea can't then equally and logically resolve all cases, either with the same or different emitter motion in each case, viz.

Non sequitur.

You wrote:

"a) Both emitter and receiver moving 'into' the wind (slower propagation speed/time) b) Both emitter and receiver moving 'against' the wind (faster propagation...). The complexity is that fields (i.e. the atmosphere) has a 'locally at rest' bulk frame, so is 'dragged', and has local domain limits. Thus the M&M results."

While the ideas of a dragged aether were inconsistent with experiments, I see it not just possible but even logically consequent to completely abandon the idea of an aether wind.

You wrote: "SO: Radio waves emitted from the surface of Earth DO 'C' (or c/n) WRT EARTH within Earth's local domain. They then change speed to do c wrt the sun (actually solar wind frame) withing the heliosheath, where they change to c wrt the Galaxy frame. This is precisely what astronomers (and NASA) find and struggle to explain as they don't discern between the discrete field motions.

Maybe, effects of non-emptiness of the belonging space are responsible for the effects you are claiming? I only considered empty space. Of course this is just a simplification but mostly a justified one.

You Wrote: "The final key is that the 'approach speed' and wavelength are not accessible to a detector. A lens or antenna can only obtain an amplitude and 'time' between wave peaks, to then compute to a 'frequency'."

It is certainly justified to assume that chemical elements correspond to the same emitted frequencies/wave-lengths and therefore to calculate v from non-relativistic Doppler shift.

You wrote: "But by the time it detects that time it has changed due to detector motion. That is the important new (DFM) understanding. EM waves propagate at c (c/n) locally in the lens and antenna."

Forget c/n with n=1. The additional time of flight depends on the motion of the detector with respect to the emitter, not on the motion of the detector relative to a local frame of reference.

Best wishes

Eckard

pjackson

James,

The key is the torque converter mechanism. I described this above and in essays and papers, but I think 'reading over' is a problem of technique used by most in these days of information overload. The wheat needs sorting from the chaff to extract it's value. I have explained this to many but it's dismissed.

Now please remember this is the DFM concept so cite the DFM if discussing it so any 'drift' in understanding has a foundational datum; Take two 'blocks' of space. A small spherical one moving 'within' and wrt a bigger one. At the front of the small one a 'bow shock' builds up where the (local dark energy or whatever you wish to call it) space is compressed. The shock is made of fermion pairs propagated and annihilated instantaneously, but some binding to bosons (protons) etc, and also has a 'magnetotail' trailing behind the small space (the space may have a smaller dense body at it's centre).

A heap of processes and mechanisms go on when light meets the shock, which forms the 'domain limit' boundary between the two 'discrete fields' (so DFM) which are each also 'inertial systems' (so 'frames'). There's Jackson-Minkowski rotation, Gottfried-Jackson helical frames, Doppler shifting, Alfven waves, etc etc, but we'll just focus on Raman scattering and two-fluid plasma Lagrangian coherent structures.

The DFM in a nut shell; the 'outside' part of the shock has particles in the 'background' rest frame, and the 'inside' in the 'small space' frame. Two conjugate 'particles' are condensed, instantly absorbs and re-emits the EM waves at c in their own frame, and are then annihilated' (electric charge cancelled over the Debye length). Think carefully about the effect. Light then moves at the different local c each side of the shock.

If the small body is rotating there is another transform to that frame. Twin Planetary Inertial Reference Frames. With luck you should have a Eureka moment.

Lunch time.

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

I will read your message with care, but, I would like to see answers to the questions posed in my two-part message.

James Putnam

Peter,

It looks like my work is still not being followed. Or, perhaps you just disagree with what I have done with mass in f=ma?

James Putnam

Peter,

"My approach is more fundamentally scientific, purely deriving effects from physical mechanisms."

We view what is fundamentally scientific very differently. So I will equalize matters at least in my opinion by saying: My approach is more fundamentally scientific, deriving defined properties by relying as closely as possible to that which empirical evidence makes known to us. The effects are the empirical evidence.

James Putnam

Peter,

The Pound-Rebka experiment wasn't addressed by you. Maybe I better be more specific. What does your model predict for the result? Afterwards, I wanted to move back to my example that dealt with the arrival of a wave moving at a speed other than C. Can you address the Pound-Rebka experiment from your point of view? I mean by following the known specifics of it and giving your view.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

I derived the Pound-Rebka tower result. If the coffee shop density is higher lower down, and string of runner all running at c mph stop at each, then the average distance between them in that local varies according to the number of coffee shops, not their running speed.

Heading up into the country they don't 'accelerate', they just stop less often. The DFM identifies that this must be distinguished from runners who are accelerated (by other means). The GRIN lens propagation speed change describes it perfectly, and the 'precise specifics' predict the wavelength delta found.

If they did another experiment it seems I've missed it!

LT Curve. It emerges at the DFM Discrete Field boundary zones as a standard generic 'power' curve, roughly as described mathematically by the Lorentz factor, physically caused by, we may say, the reducing freedom of particle oscillations as (particle/energy) density approaches OB mode (I gave you the density). This may also be looked at as the resistance to reduction of wavelength approaching the Planck length, or as my essay 3 years ago, the power input curve to a bunch of protons to accelerate them to c, due to the 'virtual electron' density (termed 'parasitic').

Compton Effect. I consider the particle/particle approach an artifact and very limited description, and the 'partial' charge case is then rather more complex. My last essay describes the parameters of density potentials for which there are close analogies in Huygens Construction and sums over paths, as it's all about interference and the NLS equation with spread function. I a nutshell, if a 'trigger' energy isn't reached at any point in space and time no photon is re-emitted, and in the same way no new fermion pair is propagated.

I can't recall precisely how you treat 'mass' in f=ma as to me it's best represented as relative motion, but in a gyroscopic terms as OAM. That just leaves the unknowable question of motion of 'what' (apart from ground comprathene).

I had to smile at you slightly prickly response on 'fundamental'. It's a limiting word, but I quite agree your approach is also very 'fundamental' in a slightly different way. My point was more about the 'substance'; that the DFM derives underlying physical mechanisms for all the effects observed, leaving no 'theoretical differences' because present conflicting 'interpretations' are simply no longer required. The most fundamental assumption revoked is the most basic one common to philosophy, mathematics and logic, commutativity, or A=A and A=B. Both are shown as false in my essay. From the new foundations uncertainty is absolutely natural and has a calculable recursive distribution pattern as Godel suggested (n-value logic).

Peter

pjackson

Eckard,

Experiments with clouds and inkblots show the wonderful breadth and disparity possible in human perception and thought patterns. Perhaps that above all ensures our survival. Breadth as well as depth of perception is a good thing.

In your universe; "While the ideas of a dragged aether were inconsistent with experiments, I see it not just possible but even logically consequent to completely abandon the idea of an aether wind."

I have explained to the best of my ability the error of assumption in those interpretations, and how I am considering inertial systems represented by virial particle systems, for instance Earth's and Venus's magneto/iono and atmospheres, and how each acts as a datum for propagation at local c.

I have tried to show the logic that c is then at once the same (locally) but different (non-locally or 'globally', to an observer at rest in the barycentric (sun) frame between them (K). I simply do not understand how that logic can be seen as false, and have found it also resolves a gamut of 'anomalies'.

You cannot 'see' or agree that changes in speed of signals moving from Earth's surface, via frame K to the surface of Venus will be perceived by the observer in frame K. But then if you could, it may mean mankind would have less breadth of perception than we do have, so it may not be a bad thing.

However much we like to think we apply the SciMeth all our decisions and views are based on beliefs and assumptions drawn from our own different experience. I'm becoming convinced I'm unable to persuade you of things mine tell me about the limitations of your suggestion, and of more complete alternative, which is contrary to what yours tell you. I'm suggesting perhaps that should then not be of concern. Each should then perhaps explore and falsify his own.

best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

Your answer is that your model predicts the same change in energy as does the gravitational red shift? The means by which this occurs is not due to repeated absorption and emission? Those do not change the energy? The energy change does not occur due to the diminishing number of absorptions and emissions that results in an increasing propagation speed? Those were questions looking for necessary corrections. The change in energy is due to what effect on the photon or wave? I am looking for a cause of change of energy that exists in this gravitational example but did not exist in my earlier non-gravitational example. I am expecting the difference to be something that occurs to the wave or photon. Something that can be addressed in simple physical terms such as what happens to the wavelength or what happens to the frequency or what happens to the wave number, etc. Why does the energy change in this example but not in the other? What is the key difference that causes the energy to change in the same amount as predicted by relativity theory?

James Putnam

Peter,

"The GRIN lens propagation speed change describes it perfectly, and the 'precise specifics' predict the wavelength delta found."

Can you explain this by referring to the waveform and showing why its changes result in a change energy? Is there a graph that shows your data conforming to the curve for gravitational red shift? Presumably your solution will allow me to ask for the energy at any height and that the answer will match that of gravitational red shift.

James Putnam

Peter,

"I a nutshell, if a 'trigger' energy isn't reached at any point in space and time no photon is re-emitted, and in the same way no new fermion pair is propagated."

I was in error. I said Compton effect while thinking of near misses at various distances. What I should have been asking about is a Bremsstrahlung collision. Your responses were confusing to me, but only as a result of my asking a confused question. I probably need to put that question aside for now and review the details of a Bremsstrahlung collision. I want to make sure that if I ask a question about it that involves understanding your model that my question is coherent. Sorry about that.

James Putnam

Peter,

"I can't recall precisely how you treat 'mass' in f=ma as to me it's best represented as relative motion, but in a gyroscopic terms as OAM. That just leaves the unknowable question of motion of 'what' (apart from ground comprathene)."

I certainly understand that your model deserves your attention. The things that I say are incompatible with your model. My point here is not that you should invest your time in understanding my work, the point is merely to make clear that if you don't know what I have done with defining mass, then, you will understand why I say the things I do. A large amount of what I speak about results directly from defining mass. I won't go into it here. I have covered it many times in other threads.

James Putnam

[deleted]

James,

"Can you explain this by referring to the waveform and showing why its changes result in a change energy? Is there a graph that shows your data conforming to the curve for gravitational red shift? Presumably your solution will allow me to ask for the energy at any height and that the answer will match that of gravitational red shift."

There is no change in energy, it's just more or less compressed/concentrated by the apparent 'speed change' from a certain observer frame. The 'energy per unit time' to that observer is constant. Only when the 2nd element 'relative motion' enters the fray does the LT also apply.

But first; The answers to your 15.50GMT questions; 1) it is, 2) Correct, 3-4) There is NO total energy 'change', just wavelength. As speed and time is treated incorrectly it's misunderstood. The rest of your statement ignored the simple fact that ALL ENERGY IS CONSERVED in the wavenumber.

LT; Any delta can be simply derived. Length Contraction;

Delta x' = delta x /y. y.=.the Lorentz Factor 1/ root 1-v^2/c^2.

This produces a curve which happens to closely emulate the effects of particle density reduction. In fact the curve profile varies and the Yukawa potential often more closely describes nature (or 'screened Coulomb potential', with it's sharper 'cut off'). The uncertainty theorem applies reducing precision to 1st order. But you will only find different redshift at different heights not different 'energy' once making the proper time correction;

delta t' = y delta t. (y = dt/dT where T is proper time).

Compton, Yes, your posts were very confusing, so I just responded to the case you described. Bremsstrahlung should occur at electron energy delta's on speed changes due to interactions because an electron is a quantised coherent 'body' so will emit low energy photons. The understanding of electron 'heating' at shock is nonsense. the increased 'energy levels' measured are over a unit time in the detector frame, so only represent the speed 'change' when viewed from a fixed frame.

I recall being unconvinced but interested in your definition of mass, but can't recall details now, and don't recall it unravelled the 'mysteries' of rest/ inertial/ relativistic etc. If it did do point me to it.

I hope that answers all your questions.

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

Thank you. I think that is enough to work with. I needed to get away from examples of my own making. I don't want to have to specify everything. The Pound-Rebka experiment is different from my examples because it involves general relativity theory ideas. I can focus the my questions without the obligation to fill in all the blanks first. Physicists have done that. Also, its result is not being interpreted by me, its interpretation is consistent with established physics theory. I wanted to look at your model first from outside the mechanism. In other words, I wanted to focus on inputs and outputs and maybe receive responses that were leaner in content.

I will look for a way to challenge what appears to me to be your contention: That the energy does not change and that its compression with time is what makes it not accepted at the bottom of the tower. I guess this already starts some discussion, because, my next comment is that: Presumably the corrective action, consistent with your model, that needs to be taken for the photon or wave to be made acceptable is the decompression of the energy? I guess it would be helpful to know now if you agree or disagree with those two statements?

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

The model agrees both, also Friedmans equation which does add a 3rd order energy change, but not noticeable over short distance and time. In fact if you study the Friedman Universe carefully, though ostensibly compatible with Maxwell/Einstein, it does derive evolution of space permittivity which means from certain frames light speed will appear to change at change of density, precisely as the DFM solution to Pound-Rebka. This is such a high order effect in terms of evolution of permittivity over cosmic time it's 'local perturbation' analogue is wrongly ignored.

I recall there are actually three (other) commonly proposed solutions to the Pound-Rebka experiment, all of which have some claimed theoretical issue or other. Dayton Miller found the same effect due to altitude at Mount Wilson and also could't rationalise it. I recall the same correct solution is described somewhere in here; http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163

I find leaner understanding always incomplete understanding, propagating confusion, but agree we now live in a world of 'sound-bites!

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

Here are a couple of points for you to address. I think you have covered a couple of them but I am asking again in the context of the group of statements. The main one concerns the relationship of the wave number to energy as velocity varies:

The first one contains several statements:

"The rest of your statement ignored the simple fact that ALL ENERGY IS CONSERVED in the wavenumber."

It is frequency that is directly proportional to energy. Frequency is the number of cycles received per unit of time. The Doppler affect, for two approaching sources, increases the received frequency.

The relationship between wave number and energy holds only for a specific velocity. A change in velocity involves a change in the wave number and its relationship to energy.

The new wave number relationship to the changed energy results from solving for the new wave number using the new frequency.

In the case of the Pound-Rebka experiment, the frequency of the wave is increased for its downward trip as calculated using the highly successful Equivalence Principle.

In Relativity theory, energy is proportional to frequency as calculated using the relativistic transformation of energy. The energy changes by the same factor as frequency for a new reference frame.

The second one:

Why does your model remove the partial derivative with respect to time for Maxwell's equations?

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

An axiomatic theory is like a key, code or chain. One part missing or wrong and it doesn't work. I stated the new understanding required in discrete field (DFM), frame transitions which is that, as in optical science, the 'WAVENUMBER' contains the energy for any given amplitude.

Yet you revert to the old erroneous belief; "It is frequency that is directly proportional to energy." You'll find that that key STILL doesn't fit. You must accept and rationalise the DFM ontology if you want entry. You can't 'pick and chose'.

I have explained this once, but the fault lies in the treatment of 'time' (and the 'partial time derivative' nonsense). You are correct in saying;

"Frequency is the number of cycles received per unit of time."

So now think very hard. If a clock at rest in an inertial system approaching you at 0.5 c emits a single pulse of a fixed total energy taking one second, will that pulse last one second on arrival at your OWN rest frame?

And do you not receive the same TOTAL energy!?

The simple logical answer is unique to the DFM. Once you have understood that, if you can then explain to me what on Earth partial time derivatives and virtual electrons are and do, and why Snell's Law and Fresnel refraction currently fails at Maxwell near/far field frame transitions, Then I'll explain why they are not required - if still necessary.

I suspect that may also solve the 3rd problem you referred to but haven't yet stated.

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

"An axiomatic theory is like a key, code or chain. One part missing or wrong and it doesn't work. I stated the new understanding required in discrete field (DFM), frame transitions which is that, as in optical science, the 'WAVENUMBER' contains the energy for any given amplitude.

I didn't revert to anything. I guess I should have explained in clear terms that those statements were a compilation of typical textbook type challenges. It was an opportunity for you to respond to them together. Up until now, my intent was to discuss your theory and maybe be able to give reworded explanations of your model that might help in communicating it. I have not expressed my own opinion about it. Quoting from above "...the 'WAVENUMBER' contains the energy for any given amplitude." The textbook type explanation would say that "...the wave number is proportional to energy only for a specific velocity. If the velocity changes, the wave number must change in accordance with a change in frequency. The energy changes with the frequency. The new wave number can be calculated from the new frequency." You state that "Energy is conserved in the wave number." Is this your new view that you are introducing or have I misstated what is presently taught? I understand it to be your newly introduced conservation rule.

"I have explained this once, but the fault lies in the treatment of 'time' (and the 'partial time derivative' nonsense). You are correct in saying;

""Frequency is the number of cycles received per unit of time.""

And do you not receive the same TOTAL energy!?"

I better make certain we are talking about the same 'partial time derivative'. The partial time derivative in Maxwell's equations representing the relations between a changing electric field and a changing magnetic field is not referring to the velocity of the wave. It is limited to describing what is occurring at a point on the wave. Is this incorrect? As an aside "So now think very hard.", you could run a person out of patience fast by posting repeated judgments like this. I don't need to think 'very hard' about something so simple.

"The simple logical answer is unique to the DFM. Once you have understood that, if you can then explain to me what on Earth partial time derivatives and virtual electrons are and do, and why Snell's Law and Fresnel refraction currently fails at Maxwell near/far field frame transitions, Then I'll explain why they are not required - if still necessary."

You can explain if what I said above about Maxwell's field equations is incorrect.

"I suspect that may also solve the 3rd problem you referred to but haven't yet stated."

I don't know what this is referring to. You are invited to use whatever it is to clarify your model for readers.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

I'm not repeating old doctrine. More coherent logic lies in the specification I'm taking great lengths to repeat.

You say "I don't need to think 'very hard' about something so simple." Yet you'd failed to take note so had missed the point yet again;

This really must be the last time I try! Perhaps forget the near/far field TZ and just focus on this. The solution IS ostensibly simple but it's the implications that matter. The DFM identifies that are TWO cases of energy emissions;

1. A pulse of a certain wavenumber, say 10 is emitted taking 1 second.

2. A continuous stream of fluctuations is emitted, at 10 per second.

First we consider A) the kinetic effect. If the observer is at rest wrt the emitter he detects them both over 1 second, but if he is in motion (say towards the emitter) the two cases vary. In case 2, the continuous wave, he times it for 1 second (for 'frequency) and finds it blue shifted and, guess what; "Higher Energy"!! But that is only because he now has MORE WAVES jammed into that 1 second (or less if he's receding). There is no 'change' in energy only the relative times.

Now case 1 of the short 10 wave pulse. He again times it to find frequency, and finds the SAME frequency as case 2! Now what present text books have missed is that the energy in case 2 is actually the same as emitted, just squashed into less time, so when a second in the NEW frame is used, the energy appears higher. Case 1 just gives us a 'control' case to analyse it with.

What that means is that the Doppler shift equation we use in theory, which is shift of 'frequency' makes nonsense of everything. We need to know wavelength through the background frame, which is not available to us. We can however calculate it if we know OUR OWN speed wrt the emitter (or background propagation frame) and the new 'wavelength' propagating in our own rest frame. Current theory doesn't bother with any of that so ends up as nonsense.

The case for a gradually changing medium density is different again as speed between particles is always c, and just the 'number of delays' changes. Wavelength then also changes, as does 'apparent/global' propagation speed. Again a fool not working on lambda and wavenumber would simplistically assume it is the emitted 'energy that has been changed.

The 10 wave parcel REPRESENTS a time signal of 1 second. If it dilates it does't mean 'time' has mysteriously been altered somehow! It's only because the mechanical signal sequence has been contracted or dilated.

Understanding each bit of that is not the battle, it's applying it across all current beliefs and seeing how they must change. Maxwell equations are greatly simplified, as given in my essays. I won't do this again but if you haven't rationalised it all yet don't worry, it took me months to unravel the knotted mess, just keep re reading, plus my essays. (but don't 'read over' any). I hope the hidden simplicity emerges.

best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

"This really must be the last time I try!" ... " Again a fool not working on lambda and wavenumber would simplistically assume it is the emitted 'energy that has been changed."

That which must be must be:

For other readers: My statement about Maxwell's equations relating electric field changes to magnetic field changes is correct. The partial time derivative applies to changes occurring at a point anywhere along the wave independent of the size, shape, or velocity of the wave. It is, strictly speaking, independent of whether the Doppler effect has occurred or not. Other readers are invited to critique my statement at my own thread in this same forum, if it is incorrect please say so.

James Putnam

John Cox

Pete,

Paint it, and you can sell anything. So whether I accept your definition of the speed of time or anything else, I think your presentation would still be most easily grasped if you introduced it simply by talking about the model itself and give a brief overview of the difference between near and far field. What the model does is examine the transition of the translational speed of light from one medium into another as an event in time. Then point out that in many applications theoretically the transition is treated as instantaneous which can lead to results that are anomalous with regard to both prediction and experiment. Loose as much jargon as you can in the intro, it will get thick enough in the nuancing of axiomatics. Avoid headlines, let it speak for itself. jrc

p.s. If I go back to my workbench of Euclidean dimensions in the safety of my perfectly background independent void and turn on the light, what happens if light does not move as fast as time allows? On the one hand if light is slower than time then I will be forever left in the dark fumbling for the switch. On second hand if light is faster than time the switch will already be illuminated by the light I switch on.

John Cox

Pete,

Thank-you, I stand corrected as much as I'm capable, much of this is new to me. As to the EM fields being 'particle based' I quite agree that they are the 'stuff' of matter, field intensity is analogous to energy density. The peculiarities of their behavior in the near field suggests that they are responsive to both inertial frames of electron and quantum energy volumes. In the near field it is very much like time and space adjust to an optimum volumetric parameter prescribed by each energy quantity. Fascinating. jrc

Eckard Blumschein

Admittedly, I have problems to understand Peter Jackson and also James Putnam who cryptically wrote: "That misuse of the word time is relativity theory's error. To make it clear: When I use the name 'time dilation' I am only using it as a name. I do not believe that time dilates."

In German, i.e. in Einstein's native language, there is no distinction between Geschwindigkeit in the sense of the scalar "speed" and the vector "velocity". While the latter obviously refers to a point of reference, the speed seems to be something absolute. Well, there is no negative speed as there is no negative distance too. Nonetheless, don't speed of light in vacuum as well as distance in space necessarily refer to the difference between two tacitly chosen points of reference: starting point and endpoint? There is certainly no otherwise preferred reference on condition other influences or observers are not involved. I do not support the idea that reality can be judged by what an observer sees. Peter is perhaps right in that the universe is strictly speaking not an empty space. However, does this fully explain the observable behavior of electromagnetic waves? Isn't the reemission theory an emitter theory?

Eckard

« Previous Page Next Page »