Alternative Models of Reality

"In what circumstance doesn't greater volume mean greater surface area?"

That's easy to answer, isn't it, John? The hard question is why you're convinced it *couldn't* be true otherwise. Try the important questions for a change. You will thank yourself.

Best,

Tom

Peter,

This reminds me of an observation I made yesterday; For every thought, there is an equal and opposite thought. ;-)

We seem to be on opposite sides of this issue. I see space as foundational and time as emergent. As you are firmly set in your model and you have heard my arguments about time more than enough, I'll not belabor the issue, other than to give a plea for more respect for space;

Everyone wants to dismiss it as some abstraction, or emergent, or just a product of measurement, or action or some other such reason, yet look out at the sky at night! The distances involved, the volume manifest reduce entire galaxies and galaxy clusters to nothing more than smudges.

We think we explain it as all popping out of some hat less than 14 billion years ago, but as I keep pointing out, how can we say "space expands," yet retain a constant speed of light? Isn't "Space what you measure with a ruler?" If we are still going to denominate the distance between expanding points of reference in the constant of lightspeed, then that is only increased distance, not expanding space. The denominator is the unit of measure. What it is "denominated" in!! How hard is that to figure out?

You say it is only the frame, so could we have two frames, both holding dynamic realities, passing each other at the speed of light?

What about the space station in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey; It is a frame and it is not accelerating, so where does the centrifugal force causing the gravitational effect come from, if not because of the movement of that frame relative to some more elemental inertial space/unbounded frame?

No, space doesn't have anything we can really hold onto and focus on and we really like things that get our attention, but is that an issue with us, or with space?

Eckard,

I think you and I are on the same page here, but my brain gets tied in so many knots, trying to figure out what others are saying, what their assumptions and or models are, how they are interpreting me, etc, that it's wonder I can still think.

I see it as infinite, inertial space, with stuff moving about. Positive/negative, expanding/contracting. Most everything else is effect and aspect.

I wish they would change the logout until one actually logs out.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

I'm not convinced it couldn't, that's why I asked. If it isn't obvious, I am a fairly basic sort of person and tend to see the reasonable. While things are not always so simple, it is a fairly reliable assumption, but I am certainly capable of accepting there will always be a lot I don't know.

Regards,

John M

E. to John M,

Your entire post addressed me too. I reiterate my argument that the so called inertial frame is always arbitrarily chosen and excludes to simultaneously choose one more frame. This does not mean that the chosen frame is a priori a preferred one. Every choice is equally possible.

Accordingly, it seems to me not justified to imagine space like a sphere that can expand. I support your argument: "how can we say "space expands, yet retain a constant speed of light? Isn't space what you measure with a ruler?" Maybe, we are both too stupid as to understand the mainstream. However, I doubt this possibility because the theories that Tom failed to understandably defend did obviously arise from quite ordinary but questionable reasoning.

I reiterate my hope for revelations of embarrassing mistakes like in case of NSU in Germany.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

It seems a fact of nature that crowds of people can get away with stuff that would not be tolerated, or at best laughed off, if it was just by one person. The feedback loops can created some powerful social weather systems, but eventually they cool and fade.

Regards,

John M

John,

You'll see no-one has more respect for space than I by re-reading my last years essay!! You certainly need to read my posts more slowly to avoid jumping to assumptions that aren't there, and to derive the main point, which you didn't do.

Accepting space as 'real' and so 'distance' as a fundamental in no way conflicts with my highly falsified derivation of universal time. A close colleague of mine owns a company supplying weapon crystal oscillators. In your universe the oscillators would change speed if the missile is doing some 'different' speed (to the plane, air or hangar??) in which case the telemetry would be seriously compromised. The fact is that they DO NOT! The Hafele-Keating result has been falsified John. It WAS false, as Hafele himself said. (Basudeba reproduces a full explanation in his essay blog).

You said; "As you are firmly set in your model... ...I'll not belabor the issue, other than to give a plea for more respect for space;"

I've shown the 2nd assumption is wrong. So is the first. The model is evolving all the time entirely in line with empirical evidence. As I've sad before what I'm trying to do is to falsify it, i.e. to test all parts to destruction SCIENTIFICALLY! It's a little frustrating when people just come back and say their beliefs are different and think that's somehow the same. It isn't. Very VERY far from it.

I've cited endless empirical and epistemological evidence and derived consistent logic. I also study and analyse all apparently conflicting evidence offered. None has stood up. Just a touch of respect for that might be nice! i.e. comment on the actual evidence I offer instead of just repeating prior beliefs, which you wrongly accuse me of. You may feel you can ignore apparent evidence. I don't. I don't understand why that is dismissed. Am I wrong?

Two more interesting findings supporting discrete field ontology have just been published; Fists findings of 'apparent' superluminal motion, from NASA Mayer HST 2013 superluminal confirmation paper, and Fermi; MNRAS Paper confiming up to apparent 46c.

Also findings from the new VLBA of lensing in the ISM via refraction from moving plasma, exactly as the DFM predicted (see 2011 essay; '2020 vision').

Any comments on the important actual implications for science?

Peter

" ... there will always be a lot I don't know."

Is that quantity identical to what you can't know?

Steve,

Not uncommon. I've proposed a 'slow down and think' era to replace 'shut up and calculate'. Your theory sounded as if it has commonalities with the model of discrete fields I've successfully developed in my last 3 essays here, but reading it I find it seems not to. I'm not sure how I missed your essay this year, I did my best but only managed abut 2/3rd! To save me checking a very long list, did you read and comment on mine?

May I also ask, if there were TWO pairs space buoys side by side, and before the ship passed by the string was cut. Would one set contract and one not? If both, then I assume all space also contracts, so the theory may seem to becomes paradoxical and non predictive.

In fact I find I disagree with the starting assumptions that; 1 Any 'body' can reach ~c, and 2, That anything can be 'measured' except by direct interaction. My essays construct the coherent logic of that if you wish to read them. Do give me your views.

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

I can only agree, though I'd have expressed it differently. But then as you're also describing some key sections the DFM ontology I'm rather bound to.

Some significant evidence rather problematic for the alternative popular mainstream doctrine is now emerging. What's notable is that they're from NASA HST and Fermi data and in the most mainstream of journals. The descriptions are carefully termed as none of them yet have or address any coherent ontology recovering SR. You asked me for novel predictions and correspondence with observation. These are yet more.

The key links are in my post to John M above (Aug 31 string) but I re-post here with the third link;

First; findings of 'apparent' superluminal motion, from NASA Mayer HST 2013 superluminal confirmation paper, and Fermi; MNRAS Paper confirming up to apparent 46c.!! (see post to John for links, which won't re-post!)

Also findings from the new VLBA of lensing in the ISM via refraction from moving plasma, exactly as the DFM predicted (see 2011 essay; '2020 vision').Pushkarev et al, VLBA confirms lensing from ISM plasma refraction

Do tell me if further explanation of the findings is required.

Best wishes,

Peter

Thanks, Peter. I still fail to understand, though -- as we've discussed before -- how you can get continuous measurement functions from your discrete field model (DFM). I'm not saying it can't be done; however, it would have to be explained in strict mathematical terms to convince me. Even a reference to a theorem would help.

All best,

Tom

Tom,

Try it geometrically as a so called 'toy' model. Follow the path of the charge orbital angular momentum forming the outer edge of the helix created by the torus translating on it's axis (all from a simple dipole, including the double helix!).

I've seen a lot of maths apparently for that but it's quite beyond mine!

Note the formula for waves demands motion and that for particles demands time to be frozen. Both are then valid for the translating toroid case, with uncertainty emerging from the NLS equation spread function (also then explained).

At the same time space time and gravity are simply quantized via the plasma ion gravitational and (high) EM coupling potentials. A plasma n=1 no spectroscopic signature is detectable (so it's "Dark") except kinetically (explaining the kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, Interstellar Faraday Rotation, elliptical polarity (from lateral motion) and a host of other astronomical anomalies).

Does that help at all? (there also seemed to be some good valid maths in other essays, including recursive gauge theory, which I explain as ever higher order 'sample spaces' of the 'full orbits').

Anyone seen Zeeya?

Peter

Peter,

I certainly mean you no disrespect and am sorry if I misinterpreted you. I've spent the afternoon cutting down and up some large dead oak trees and dragging them halfway across the farm to serve as jumps. It's the sort of thing I do for a living and while it gives me a healthy respect for basic physics, it doesn't leave me alot in the way of energy to really process the more complex aspects. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, I didn't get into studying physics for any other reason than my own enlightenment and only then did I get the impression there is far more head in the clouds thinking than anyone cares to admit. This hasn't changed the fact that I still see and think on a fairly basic level and while I do put some degree of effort into trying to understand what others are thinking, I am certainly willing to admit when I see my mistakes, or when it's over my head. That said, I still don't get too emotional about it, other then some mild frustration when I think the obvious is being ignored.

I have no problem with your discrete fields theory. One of my arguments has been that three dimensional space is really nothing more than a coordinate system and there are many coordinate systems defining the same space. All of the actual physical fields effectively bound up as their own gravitational systems, which do affect any light propagating through or within them. I still think space itself is an underlaying reality to all these fields, actions, effects, relationships etc. Such that while these fields might be moving around, they are ultimately bound by the speed of light relative to that inertial space. Given that light is extremely fast, this does give quite a bit of maneuvering room. Yes, around the edges, there are any number of ways it seems possible to perceive light in different ways, it does seem ultimately grounded to something more than just particular fields. So that these fields mediate between C and inertia. Otherwise, without one, the other doesn't make sense. What is to stop these fields moving past each other at multiples of the speed of light? I should go read your paper again and not just ramble on, but the mind is just on autopilot at the moment.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

No. I don't know what color your eyes are, but it's not like I can't know it.

Regards,

John M

Peter,

"So if 1,000 identical particles are at rest in 1,000 different inertial frames they will ALL oscillate at the SAME IDENTICAL rate. How can anything else possibly logically be the case? That is the proper holistic viewpoint, and conforms to Special Relativity as c is c in all inertial frames."

Identical cause yields identical effect?

TIME is universal. it is the same in all inertial systems (frames) anf also all the BACKGROUND frames those systems may be moving through."

I'm not trying to be rude, but we really are looking this from opposite perspectives. You see time as universal in all inertial frames. I see only one inertial frame. Anything, like the space station, is moving relative to it. Because all motion in that frame is affected identically, its clocks are identical.

" In your universe the oscillators would change speed if the missile is doing some 'different' speed (to the plane, air or hangar??) in which case the telemetry would be seriously compromised.'

What about clocks on gps satellites? What if that missile was traveling at some significant fraction of the speed of light?

Can both space and time be universal(Newton), or is it the combination(Einstein) maybe it's just time(Jackson), or maybe it's just space(Me)rryman)?

Regards,

John M

Good example, John. My eyes are brown. My wife's eyes are brown. Our daughter's eyes are blue -- what you might call an "anomaly" in terms of physics, since blue eyes are recessive.

If you also knew, however, that my wife's father and my mother both had blue eyes -- you could calculate a significant probability that a child of two brown eyed parents would have blue eyes (it's been too long since high school biology for me to bother with a gene chart, so take my word for it).

I hope you remember your example the next time you rant about "anomalies." The theories we construct to try and explain those anomalies are based on information you probably don't have, but could if you learned it.

Best,

Tom

Peter,

As I have said or implied before, I think you have a much better chance of explaining yourself if you narrow your ambition. When you try and explain everything at once, you end up explaining nothing.

Theorists don't try and match phenomena to explanations (a coherent theory or set of equations) -- they try and predict phenomena from the theoretical construction. Even today after almost a hundred years, quantum theorists are trying to derive quantum mechanics from first principles, because the mathematical model -- unlike the equations of relativity -- are not mathematically complete, i.e., not a logically closed judgement.

That's why I ask you not for a "DFM ontology" which is philosophical, but for a mathematical principle that allows continuous measurement functions which are classical, to precisely correspond to discrete (quantum) measurements. I understand how Joy does it; I don't understand how you purport to do it.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

I actually do know somethings about genes. Remember I'm in the animal husbandry business.

The larger point is about the nature of knowledge and specifics vs. generalized. Would it be possible for me, or any one person, to learn the color of the eyes of every other person on the planet? Yet there will always be someone who knows the color of the eyes of any particular person. As I argued in my contest entry, knowledge is a function of making distinctions and connections. We just can't combine knowledge anymore than we can just combine colors and still paint the sort of picture we can by making them distinct. To define is to limit, as to limit is to define. If you were to try to remember the colors of the eyes of just every person you ever met, it is safe to say this information would start to blur and run together. We have this religious assumption of an all-knowing singular deity, but I would hold it is a contradiction. You push information to infinity and it all flattens out, like detail on the horizon. Everything added together is just about the same as nothing at all. Either way, you have a flatline. So knowledge is by its nature limited. We can focus on the general, or some specifics, but they cancel out in combination.

Here is a very interesting article on ant intelligence and one of the main points it makes is that their knowledge functions are distinct, but networked. I would argue we operate in the same fashion and that when we combine too many functions at once, it becomes something of an emotional meltdown state. That we think most clearly when we can keep different brain functions reasonably separate, like different colors in the same picture. Our sense of self then is what is most prominent and concentrated. In our subconscious dream states, there is more ambiguity as these various parts tug at each other. Having some degree of neural mis-functions over the years, I've a bit of personal experience sorting this out. I was thinking of putting this article up as a discussion topic to the moderators.

Regards,

John M

Ps, Mine are brown as well. So are my daughter's, though her mother's were more greenish.

John,

"Would it be possible for me, or any one person, to learn the color of the eyes of every other person on the planet?"

In principle? Yes.

An algorithm based on a general theory of biological inheritance can predict from sufficient data the distribution of past and future eye color by population domains, and correct for anomalous variables when these domains interact. Sure, I knew that you're involved in breeding horses, which is the reason I thought this a good example.

Thoreau said that some circumstantial evidence is compelling, " ... as when one finds a trout in the milk." Suppose one of your mares gave birth to some spotted foal unknown in the genetic line of horses that you are raising. Will you jump to the conclusion that someone tampered with the semen tube? Maybe. More likely, you'll want to do some forensic investigation (and certainly the breeder's attorney will demand it) that establishes some nonvanishing probability for this birth from data of a sufficient number of generations back.

In foundational physics, though, the appearance of anomalous data *never* has a sufficient past to make a closed judgment on whether the anomaly is organic to a general theory of origins or a genuine anomalous and unexplained discovery. The best we can do is compare a comprehensive theory (a mathematical structure) to an experimental result.

I get aggravated in these discussions (probably more than I should, but my left brain dominance gets away from me) when so many -- not just you -- claim they have found a trout in the milk when it's easy to show that they really haven't.

"If you were to try to remember the colors of the eyes of just every person you ever met, it is safe to say this information would start to blur and run together."

No it isn't safe to say that! If the object is to remember discrete colors of eyes, it's ridiculous to conclude that everyone you ever met has the same blurry eye color!

I'm familiar with the ant intelligence complex systems model (have actually had the pleasure of listening to E.O. Wilson lecture on it) -- complex systems is my primary research interest.

"I would argue we operate in the same fashion ..." and you would be wrong.

The author quotes Herbert Simon (who did groundbreaking research in this area) " ... the ant's path is irregular, complex, and hard to describe. But its complexity is really a complexity in the surface of the beach ..." and then tries to obviate Simon's argument by saying, "We now know that the path produced by a navigating ant is based on sophisticated mechanisms.

"Ants use a variety of cues to navigate, such as sun position, polarized light patterns, visual panoramas, gradient of odors, wind direction, slope, ground texture, step-counting ... and more."

You bet. However, that only *extends* Simon's argument to a more complex "beach" of added dimensions and more complicated topology.

"Indeed," says the author, "the list of cues ants can utilise for navigation is probably greater than for humans."

Doubtful. As made apparent in the subhead of the article, "Unlike humans, ants don't build a unified map of the world." Yaneer Bar-Yam's theory of multi-scale variety* answers the author's claims, using the principle of self similarity at multiple scales; human complex neural networks allow us to choose the scale at which we make decisions, while ants apparently cannot. (Bar-Yam also solved Herbert Simon's problem of bounded rationality, showing how laterally-distributed information in a complex network is more robust than the conventional hierarchical model).

Best,

Tom

* Bar-Yam, Y. [2004]. "Multiscale Variety in Complex Systems." Complexity vol 9, no 4

Bar-Yam, Y., [2004] *Making Things Work.* NECSI, Knowledge Press.