Peter, the only thing that relativity needs saving from is anti-Einstein cranks.

" ... if we rearrange E = mc^2 to m = E/c^2 we find two different qualities. That violates the basic rules of arithmatic ..."

I have no idea what rule of arithmetic you think is violated. The equation says the same thing either way.

Tom,

Do you claim inertial mass is identical to rest mass? I suggest it clearly is not, as Einstein agreed, so that part of SR is not consistent.

You consistently avoid addressing the matter. You clearly can't fault the Kanda maths proving the flaw. Can you?

I don't wish to see that relatively inconsequential flaw drag down the rest of Einstein's genius Tom. All the rest is fine. Einstein knew his theory wasn't complete, which he wrote to Max Born that; "I hope someone will find..."

It would be ironic if it's his disciples that ultimately destroy it by resisting it's logical completion.

The theory will indeed need saving if left precisely as it is. Those 'anti-Einstein cranks' you refer to now included most eminent physicists and a steadily growing fraction of the research community. The position has changed visibly before my eyes in just the last 5 years. Now YOU may be becoming the 'crank'!

Do point out Kanda's 'error' if you suggest one.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

I'm not going to go into this endlessly. Your misconceptions of relativity are too vast for me to even muster the energy to correct.

And yes, inertial mass is identical to rest mass as measured by an observer at rest relative to the quantity.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

If not at rest, then inertial mass varies from the rest mass. That is the simple arithmetical error which will sink all of SR if the hole isn't plugged.

So I suggest that; "not going to go into this endlessly" is a cop out.

I have no 'misconceptions of relativity' Tom. Including Einstein's early and later conceptions or it's interpretations. You set yourself up as an 'expert' on it and assume all who disagree with your view misunderstand it. However, it seems I understand it far better than you.

I put it to you that you have been 'taken in' by it, flaws and all, and continue to support it only due to belief and religious fervour. That is not a scientific approach. When you're view is soundly falsified by the mathematics you put your hands over your eyes.

It's ok, most have beliefs, true and false. It's being human. I don't, but do now better understand the chances of a logical middle road to unification. It seems that allowing 'babies to be thrown out with bathwater' may be the only option in our current state of intellectual evolution.

But please Tom just in case you may be wrong, be careful to not allow any bricks with inertial mass to fall on your head. And if you crash your car into a truck ensure you're at rest relative to the truck first!

Best wishes

Peter

"If not at rest, then inertial mass varies from the rest mass."

All motion is relative, Peter. "At rest" means that the bodies are in the same state of motion.

Tom,

How could I think 'at rest' means anything other than relative? Your statement is why YOUR understanding is questionable! So you can't escape that there are two distinct and different quantities; Rest Mass (fixed), and Inertial Mass when NOT at rest (Relatively). Yet the rules of arithmetic state that M=E/c^2 must be identical quantitatively to E=mc^2, so are violated.

The solution is simple, and what's more it removes the paradoxes. Light propagating in the Venusion atmosphere does c in the Venus frame, and has NO RELATIONSHIP to anybody NOT at rest in the Venusian atmosphere. Scattered light arriving here from Venus does c locally, as it does on the way. This understanding has a number of consequences.

1. Einstein's postulates are proved; light propagates at c in all inertial systems.

2. The arithmetical violation is removed. E=mc^2 is equivalent to m=E/c^2.

3. The paradoxes are resolved.

4. The observations (apparent c) which current beliefs violate are predicted.

5. SR accords with the empirical findings of optical science

6. The Higgs mechanism and field can be logically accommodated.

7. GR is rationalised with SR via a non-linear space-time background field.

8. QM must change to accept the LT, 'local time' signals and particle structure.

The small price is the acceptance that perfect vaccua do not exist, so space is not empty, and background dielectric medium systems can move. 'Absolute' as in ether remains banned, but the concept does not apply to relatively moving background systems.

Is challenging some long held but unfalsifiable belief of a supposedly intelligent being really too high a price to pay for preserving relativity?

Peter.

" ... two distinct and different quantities; Rest Mass (fixed), and Inertial Mass when NOT at rest (Relatively)."

Not at rest relative to *what*? At rest relative to *what*? Peter, you truly do not grasp the meaning of relative motion.

If you are trying to say, trivially, that inertial mass differs from rest mass by an amount of kinetic energy imparted to the body in motion relative to its state of rest with another body -- one will still find that when the bodies are brought back to relative rest, their mass-energy content is the same as it was before they were in relative motion. E = mc^2, no matter how one expresses it algebraically, refers to *rest mass-energy.*

Constantinos,

It is taking me awhile to get back to the cause of gravity. I will get to it. I have reached a point where I can state that gravity is caused by the combination of the variation of the speed of light, photon energy, and length contraction. Once the photon model is established, the role of length contraction becomes apparent. I don't assume that you or anyone else agrees with what I am writing, but, I am presenting a fundamentally unified approach to physics.

James Putnam

As simple as this model of a photon compares to high level physics, it will be shown to account for mechanical effects. The equations of physics, so far as I have progressed, result from the photon model and mass. Mass controls the speed of photons and changes their energies. Photons cause changes to mass and particle energies. Mass also affects photons with length contraction. That contraction occurs in the photon component directed toward the mass. There is no length contraction perpendicular to that direction. The direction of photon tilt is in the perpendicular direction. When the photon length contracts in the direction of mass, and not in the perpendicular direction, the effect is to increased photon tilt, equivalent to increasing photon energy.

Before progressing further, it is no doubt obvious that the photon model does not include a wave nature. That is correct. The wave nature has not been shown to yet be necessary. All results that have been achieved from using this model were, therefore, achieved without involving a wave nature. The photon may emerge as part of the emission process undergone by a cyclic motion, perhaps a sine wave, of a 'charged' particle. There is a continuous emission of photons that leave in a wave configuration, but, the photons are always individually discrete. Their tilts vary according to the varying acceleration of the 'charged' particle. The tilt is the origin of both electrical force and magnetic force. That will be covered.

The last point made in this message is the reason why the word 'charged' is in quotes. The reason is that this approach to a fundamentally unified physics has no need for individual fundamental forces. There is one cause for all mechanical effects and it is the variation of the speed of light. That variation accounts for electromagnetic effects and also provides the origin of polarity.

James Putnam

Tom,

Rest mass (of E=mc^2) is invariant. A founding conception within SR is that 'Inertial mass' is relative, so has a different definition and is a different quantity subject to relative v. If it were not so then SR would fail a priori. I won't go into momentum here, but note momentum is 'additive' with rest momentum which remains invariant.

For many purposes in SR the mass in M = E/c^2 is then the inertial mass. So it is neither defined or quantitatively the same as the invariant rest mass.

You ask and suggest; "Not at rest relative to *what*? At rest relative to *what*? Peter, you truly do not grasp the meaning of relative motion."

It seems it's you who's struggling. To measure mass requires an interaction with a detector (commonly; the 'observer'). If the observer is 'not at rest' wrt the subject particle or body he finds 'inertial mass', which is dependent on relative v. The mass at zero relative speed is rest ('invariant) mass.

So that's all fine, until we check the rules of arithmetic, which are violated as the m in each side must be identical for validity. The solution is simple, and would strengthen SR. But it does require a more consistent 'locally real' way of thinking i.e. inertial systems constituted of matter not of 'nothing'.

But as Einstein's great assistant of the late 20's Lanczos wrote; "now we are accustomed to this conception and never, not for the world give up from such manner of thinking."

He was right for many decades, but now, if thinking can't change it seems the baby may end up thrown out with the bathwater, as usual. I'm at a bit of a loss on how to help prevent it.

Can you find other ways of thinking?

Peter

"Rest mass (of E=mc^2) is invariant."

"Rest mass" and "invariant mass" are the same thing, yes.

"A founding conception within SR is that 'Inertial mass' is relative, so has a different definition and is a different quantity subject to relative v."

Relativistic mass is the mass, m, in E = mc^2. If we were being technically accurate, we would write E_0 = mc^2. The subscript "0" means rest mass. Understand that E_0 is rest (invariant) mass and m is the quantity that varies with the reference frame, i.e., with relative motion. You are adding assumptions you don't need, because the theory is already mathematically complete.

Tom,

Then you identify m=E_0/c^2 as the problem as SR needs to use inertial mass in that instance or fails. (Or similarly but perhaps better described as m and m_o).

I don'r need to add any assumptions. All I do in fact is to falsify a wrong and unnecessary one, which is that 'background' HAS to be 'absolute' and cannot be 'local'. Consistent logic itself shows the assumption of 'only absolute' to be wrong.

Lets use real local reality. i.e. a small locally limited dense cloud of real matter (inertial system A), with all scattering at c. This may exist within a larger cloud B, which may exist within a larger cloud C etc, each system with a different state of motion. I assume you can see and agree the simple logical hierarchy (identical to that of truth functional logic).

This is precisely what Einstein described in 1952; "infinitely many ...small spaces 's' within larger spaces 'S'." He was then just one step away from finding his complete, beloved and correct, local reality.

Light is scattered to c by REAL particles on entering each REAL LOCAL system.

He had the excellent excuse of thinking space was entirely empty. We don't!

Was he right in saying; "the only thing infinite is man's capacity for stupidity"?

Peter

Peter, I have gone as far in this dialogue as I care to. Good luck publishing what you think is wrong with special relativity. It isn't there, for me.

Tom,

Nothing wrong with SR, just it's interpretation, which will keep dragging it down.

But thanks, It'd certainly need good luck to save it. Learning from your preparedness to deny logical consistency and overwhelming empirical evidence I've decided it's probably not worth the effort as it would need support from at least one side.

I'm now keeping tabs on the eminent physicist prepared to question Relativity. It already seems to be reaching a majority (of course QM gave it a solid start). I wish you luck in saving it without a lifeline.

Roll on 2020.

Best wishes

Peter

The photon model has been introduced. It, the photon, is the cause of all mechanical type effects. It is the enabler. Yet it comes into use when a charged particle accelerates. And, it travels at a speed dictated to it by particles of matter.

Returning back to the first step in fixing physics. That step was defining mass. The equation f=ma has not had a defined mass. All physics equations that have been developed based upon the indefinable mass has been directing theoretical physics along a path of fundamental disunity.

Mass is defined in this fundamentally unified approach. It takes its units as a combination of the units in which the empirical evidence, from which its existence is inferred, is itself expressed. The units of that empirical evidence, particle accelerations, consists of combinations of meters and seconds. Mass is defined with units that are also a combination of meters and seconds. It is in this way that mass and force in f=ma are made to retain direct connection with their empirical evidence.

Originally mass had no definition and was immediately thereby made inherently separate from its empirical roots. It was a theoretical act introducing a theoretical property into an f=ma that itself became then theoretical along with all theory that followed it.

Correcting this first error of theoretical physics with this introduction of a defined mass, can be best explained by considering a proton. The new proton has a mass that is defined as the cause of the speed of light in the neighborhood of the proton. In fact, that curve that fits the acceleration of light away from or toward the proton becomes the definition of what is a proton. The model of the photon combined with the definition of a proton's mass will demonstrate how the effects of electromagnetism and gravity are connected.

James Putnam

4 days later

I introduce to you now, the material with in, Mathematical Time

and as it is natural, at such junctures to ask then, why

I will address briefly, personal motivation or context

first of all; I probably couldnot answer that myself, maybe just some primordial urge to make sense of things, or a communal instinct to share gifts and thoughts and simple insights by the light of fires long forgotten, or in futures were I can never arrive or then,

One might ask , what is the enclosed about

I remember when it started it was about the illusion of Time, But for now , I am much more humble and leave such interpretations to you or,

You might then ask , what do you want from me

And here finally I feel, it is a much simpler case

Ive wondered often how could these innocent thoughts fit into some wider scope of discussion,Because in my world such conversations are essentially absent or taken with apparent disdain.So maybe you know someone who would delight or be the right individual to be interested in such terminal things.

Next I have looked long and hard for previous work which ,by a classic approach, completes the interior of [the Real-number-system] ; as it is such an obvious step, and it would vastly reduce the necessary work as presented here and , as such, would simply speed and improve the process.

Any way, i hope all remains well

-peter waaben

Mathematical Time

    The relationship between String theory and the Spacetime Wave theory has been added as a new section to the paper:

    The unification of physics

    In summary: Given the success of the string theory mathematical models and the unlikely natureof the physical description of string theory (physical strings in a spacetime of 11 dimensions) it may be useful to try to map the modes of oscillation of string theory to possible modes of oscillation in the Spacetime Wave theory.

    Richard

      4 days later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #720

      John,

      Hi John,

      Thank you for your message. I moved my response here.

      "...consider the uncertainty principle, in that the point isn't that the structure is uncertain, but that our efforts to probe it also affect if, thus we can only know part of the information about it. Which, in a nutshell, is my point. I just think this goes to the nature of knowledge and information, rather than the reality we are exploring."

      The original development of the uncertainty principle was what you describe. It later became apparent that it was applicable to results even when we don't measure by probing. The diffraction pattern of a monochromatic stream of photons can be shown to vary according to the size of the slit that the photons pass through. The spreading of the diffraction pattern is proportional to the reduction in size of the slit. The uncertainty principle predicts that relationship. The uncertainty principle is also a reason why the behavior of electrons confined to atomic dimensions are described by wave mechanics. I think the uncertainty principle does go deeper in meaning than the measurement concept. I have done work on it, but haven't yet felt clear enough in my thoughts to write about it publicly.

      "By circular logic, I do simply mean, "It is what it is." Take a pencil; It is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. It's not fuzzy, or random, or indecisive. All the material components and all their molecular and atomic subcomponents are what they are. We can probe the nature of this pencil and discover what it is, according to our ability to put it in the context of our knowledge base."

      I think that this is true, but, I also think that our knowledge base, itself based upon theoretical physics, suffers from artificially induced disunity at the fundamental level. So, my opinion is that we are limited by our knowledge base for at least two principle reasons. One is that the knowledge base, meaning for me empirical evidence, is not complete enough. The second is that the theoretical interpretations applied to that knowledge base are corrupted by the infusion of empirically un-supportable inventions. This is of course a large part of what I consistently say. We can't learn about unity by theorizing about disunity.

      I imagine you already have a decided perspective on what I write.

      James Putnam