Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space

Pentcho, Peter, John :

CIG theory is a relativistic theory offering new possibilities, and, where Einstein stopped with matter warping the spacetime continuum, CIG theory takes the next logical step and proves that is the spacetime continuum itself that actually turns into matter.

As regards Time Dilation:

"Where there is a different time there must be a different place. Where there is a different place, there is a different space. Where there are different spaces, there are different volumes. CIG theory explains the creation of new volumes of space created as the result of different times imparted onto

the world universe and as a direct result of the relativistic

nature of nature."

This is CIG's interpretation of Time Dilation. There is only a "now" . The "time dilations" are interpreted within CIG as the creations of new spaces. Hence, the expanding Universe. And the new space within the balloon (see CIG).

This then takes the concept of matter (mass) and spece (spacetime), and combines the two. Varying rates of travelling mass offer up varying "cosmological non-constants". From Black Holes (the left side zero velocity end of the MTS equation) to vacuum energy (the right side Dark Energy full "c" side of the MTS equation; this is the explanation of the expanding Universe). In between is the standard model, dark matter, etc.

The fatser the mass travels the more space is created. The mass goes down, the space is created. The space collapses, mass is created. Conservation of Energy.

Explanation of double slit.

So, time dilation is reinterpreted as space creation in the CIG Theory.

But, I still believe in Time travel, because it is fun to believe in time travel. Although CIG tends to trend against it.

Perhaps Harvard can use some of the $ 6.5 billion they are asking for in this years fund raising efffort and review CIG Theory and comment. It will be a minimal effort (perhaps a thousand dollars in time and effort). Someone, anyone?

MTS

doug

www.CIGTheory.com

PS : Peter - glad to see all is well and that you are posting

"What about testing the gravitational time dilation predicted by general relativity? That's actually one of the simpler tests to carry out."

There is no gravitational time dilation. All such tests in fact measure the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

Hoffman's quote is consistent with logical analysis insofar as what changes is the speed of the signals not 'time'. But this is inconsistent with emission theory unless you accept that the mechanism for the speed change applies at ALL MATTER INTERACTIONS. So ALL matter particles then re-emit at c.

Propagation speed is NOT then speed wrt the original emitter, but wrt the last re-emitter!. Please slow down and think about the implications. In diffuse media annihilation of the old speed is gradual (gently curving!).

A dense cloud of particles (ions have the highest coupling constant) will then change the speed of light to c wrt the cloud 'bulk flow' inertial rest frame. The ions then represent a discrete 'field' or frame. All such changes Doppler shift the wavelength (computed/time as the familiar 'frequency').

If all detectors are made of such matter, c is then localised by all detectors to c (or trivially c/n) in the observers frame (by 'local emission theory' if you like). Observers then have no access to wavelength in the previous frame, so incorrectly assume the state they compute is in that frame!

It would be helpful if you could comment specifically on what I write as I do with yours, then any misconceptions can be corrected. A poorly aimed ray gun will never annihilate a target.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

If you remove the "silly assumptions," then not only does "time" not redshift, but neither does space. None of this expanding universe nonsense that still assumes a constant speed of light.

So the question is how to explain cosmic redshift as an optical phenomena.

One thing I keep coming back to is there really is no reason quanta have to always be point particles. It is a quantity of energy and it is evident that when it passes through the slits, it is more of a field and in fact it seems possible the wave effects are due to this quantity passing through the slits, rather than integral to the light, just as the point effect is likely due to how it is absorbed by the mass of the detector. So as it is passing mass/gravity fields, the inner side becomes more constricted than the outer side and this bends the light, rather than point particles flowing through "curved space."

Then if we extend that effect in the other direction, such that the deeper and emptier the space being traveled through, the less this light field is being absorbed and re-emitted, thus the less it is being gravitationally constricted. So rather than being shifted to a shorter spectrum, it is expanding outward, like ripples from a stone dropped in water. Thus not only is it redshifted, but the light we otherwise compare it to has been blueshifted....

Thinking out loud here...

Regards,

John M

John M, doug, JC.

That's the heart of nature. When waves meet waves they both 'superpose' and interact, so the less dominant can be influenced. A (counter wound) toroid is a closed wave form with much power. (I agree doug, condensed as a twin vortex 'fermion pair' from the 'continuum', but perhaps most only for a nanosecond!).

Now was it JC or Akimbo who asked this and I forgot to respond? But when a fluctuation (wave), which has an optical axis normally normal to it's propagation direction, interacts with the torus it will be both helped on it's way (so toroid spin derives local c) AND it's axis on re-emission slightly changed due to 2 asymmetries;

A; The orientation of the torus (a local EM field function), and

B; The relative motion of the torus through the propagation medium (or wrt the last re-emission). OAM is involved but we won't got into that here.

Plasma n=1 means there's no 'delay', but the effect is a slight rotation (see last years essay, including the experimental evidence) of the optical axis which is 'apparent source position', AWAY from the causal wavefront plane.

If space is expanding AT ALL then each ion is moving slightly away from us, giving a tiny redshift at each interaction, but accumulating. (We also don't know the effect of the expanding dark energy 'continuum' on the waves!). However this discrete field 'DFM' description incorporates, so can explain, pretty well all phenomena, including the anomalous and poorly understood ones, a quick list includes;

Dark energy, dark matter, refraction, Faraday rotation, elliptical polarity, birefringence, annihilation, the kSZ effects and KRR, the LT, optical breakdown, special relativity, curved space-time, quantised gravity/GR, QM's Copenhagen interpretation, the Dynamic Casimir effect, virtual electrons, galaxy bars and cyclic evolution, pre 'big bang' conditions, the Kerr effects etc etc. (the list goes on). Each of those is derived in the DFM papers. Unfortunately the foundational mechanism is slightly different to current doctrine, with significant affect right across science, so the model is probably quite wrong. Does it sound correct to you?

Many perceive a new basis is needed, but can't see beyond the old. When we consider how many text books would need replacing and how many professors would need to throw away much of what they know, I suspect the ontology has almost zero chance of being assimilated let alone found correct (or at least not until ~2020). Perhaps that's a good thing. What do you think?

Peter

John, As regards your comment:

"It is a quantity of energy and it is evident that when it passes through the slits, it is more of a field and in fact it seems possible the wave effects are due to this quantity passing through the slits, rather than integral to the light, just as the point effect is likely due to how it is absorbed by the mass of the detector. "

The solution to the double slit conundrum is as follows:

With respect to the double slit experiment, if the photon/electron, etc., being in its collapsed state (i.e. black hole-like) prior to departure from

its originating aperature, then proceeds to it becoming more spatial (MT=S in accordance with Coney Island Green), manifesting into amuch much larger three dimensional spatial state, could it then not go through both slits? For

instance, without the need for the current quantumn conundrum of splitting into two particles and having one particle go through both slits, like some sort of quantum magic? Current thought requires the particle to split and go through both slits, to be in two places at once, like magic. CIG theory allows some of the the particle, now in its spatial state, to go through one

slit, and some of the particle to go through the remaining slit. No magic necessary. Much more believable.

The introduction of MT=S allows for the particle to go through both slits without the need for quantumn confusion. Then, the spatial field faces interference and diffraction, according to normal wave theory. It collapses accordingly when it "hits the wall", adhering to probabilities

of wave function collapse (the probabilities may actually follow the 4th Law of Motion & the desire to reach time equilibrium). The collapse of the spatial field (S/T=M), reintroduces not the particle, but a new particle, only different from the first via its transmutations through its

field interractions during its journey from the originating aperature, through both slits, subsequent wave interference, and final collapse.

What started as a massive particle lost that mass and became spatial, and could then travel closer to the speed of light. Matter loses mass as it travels fatser and faster, it does not, as Einstein offers, gain mass.

The mass turns into Space ( the spacetime continuum). MTS combines E = mc2 and spacetime through a reinterpretation of time dilation as space creation.

Put a cold balloon in the refrigerator. Take it out and watch the space increase inside the balloon. Do we agree that there is new spatial volume inside the balloon? If yes, where did that space come from? MTS

If not, then we do not agree on our definitions.

CIG conserves energy. How is energy otherwise conserved in the expanding universe if CIG is not correct?

Were this an isolated solution to the double slit offered by the MTS equation/philosophy, it might be cause for doubt. However, MTS has now been applied to many other aspects of physics (my latest was quantum tunneling) and cosmology (dark matter, horizon problem, etc.).

And the sky I see at night is filled with Big Bangs.

And the atoms I can't see are Big Bangs.

I have been waiting for years and yearss for a comment on the validity of my theory.

I recognize some of its implications to physics. And what it displaces (i.e. inflationary theory).

I have offered about all can with my limited knowledge.

More syrup please.

THX

doug

Einsteinians test time dilation, the glorious consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

MIT Department of Physics: "The idea of this experiment is, in effect, to compare the mean time from the creation event to the decay event (i.e. the mean life) of muons at rest with the mean time for muons in motion. Suppose that a given muon at rest lasts for a time tb. Equation 5 predicts that its life in a reference frame with respect to which it is moving with velocity v, is (gamma)tb, i.e. greater than its rest life by the Lorentz factor gamma. This is the effect called relativistic time dilation. (...) In this experiment you will observe the radioactive decay of muons and measure their decay curve (distribution in lifetime) after they have come to rest in a large block of plastic scintillator, and determine their mean life. From your previous measurement of the mean velocity of cosmic-ray muons at sea level and the known variation with altitude of their flux, you can infer a lower limit on the mean life of the muons in motion. A comparison of the inferred lower limit with the measured mean life at rest provides a vivid demonstration of relativistic time dilation."

Note that when Einsteinians refer to muons "at rest", they mean that those muons "come to rest in a large block of plastic scintillator". That is, any time a muon bumps into an obstacle so that its speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s to zero, the forced and quick disintegration of the muon makes Einsteinians sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. Why? Simply because rationality in today's science is so devastated that, as the muon undergoes such a terrible crash, Einsteinians can safely say 'Lo, a muon at rest' (nobody cares to contradict them) and infer that non-crashing (moving) muons undergo time dilation, as predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory, and so live longer than crashing ("at rest") muons. Sane scientists (if there are any) would compare the short lifetime of muons "at rest" with the short lifetime of a driver whose car has come to a sudden stop into a wall:

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay."

"Experiment 1: The lifetime of muons at rest (...) Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay."

Pentcho Valev

Peter,

I concur.

THX

The Speed of Light Relative to the Receiver Varies with the Speed of the Receiver

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

That is, the motion of the receiver obviously cannot change "the distances between subsequent pulses" and accordingly the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c, in violation of special relativity.

This conclusion is consistent with the classical Doppler effect but one can easily see that the relativistic corrections change essentially nothing - the speed of light relative to the receiver remains different from c.

Pentcho Valev

Peter,

I think that if it can be considered that redshift is an optical effect, just as gravitational effects on light are optical, since they don't involve the source being affected, then the whole big bang model falls apart and there is no need to explain everything from inflation to dark energy and all theories built on this model have to be seriously revisited.

Background radiation would simply be the solution to Olber's paradox, ie. the light of ever distant sources, but shifted off the visible spectrum and remaining as black body radiation.

I think alot of this goes back to the dismissal of space as nothing more than a an effect of measurement points. I think it is the quanta that expand and contract, which we interpret as the expansion and gravitational contraction of space.

Doug,

"What started as a massive particle lost that mass and became spatial, and could then travel closer to the speed of light. Matter loses mass as it travels fatser and faster, it does not, as Einstein offers, gain mass."

I see it as close to this, though it is simply the quantum expanding out and where it is absorbed the quickest is what reacts first. Go back to Eric Rieter's entry in the Questioning the Foundations contest, where he experimentally shows what he calls the loading principle of light. That these detector atoms already have some residual radiation and it is what needs to be additionally absorbed to trip them to a higher level, sort of light popping corn, as Constantinos Ragazas describes it. Remember the only real measure of quanta are the amount of energy, not any particular object.

"Put a cold balloon in the refrigerator. Take it out and watch the space increase inside the balloon. Do we agree that there is new spatial volume inside the balloon? If yes, where did that space come from? MTS"

A big issue I have with all expanding space concepts is they still rely on a stable speed of light to measure the expansion. Thus C is the denominator and the expansion is the numerator. That's not expanding space, but an increasing amount of stable space. Remember 'space is what you measure with a ruler' and the cosmic ruler is a unit derived from C. So space outside the bubble just becomes space inside the bubble and the redshift is still classic doppler effect. So either we are at the center of the universe, or redshift is a optical effect.

Regards,

John M

doug,

Great. Louis Pasteur and I agree about space too. But when he found a column of liquid could create a space from nowhere at the top of the test tube, I think certain assumptions were drawn that need more detailed consideration. i.e. There is absolutely no guarantee the 'space' there may not have been the space always there but between the heavier massive particles in the medium so simply vacated as the most visible medium particles were drawn down.

We know very well it's far from a perfect vacuum, and also that we can't get anywhere near a perfect vacuum, anywhere we've tried (and Pamela has just confirmed the Fermi and AMS findings of far more fermion pairs in space than predicted.) So why is it that humans habitually chose previous beliefs and guesses over implications of well evidenced findings.

We also know those particles have a valid rest frame, and high coupling constant. So what happened to intellect? For me there's too little application of the objective scientific method and rather too much 'religious' belief pervading physics. As optical science has proved. When light passes through your balloon it propagates with respect to the rest frame of your balloon, not any other frame.

The balloon is an inertial system giving a dynamic 'discrete field' model (DFM) whatever it's arbitrary motion wrt anything else. The quantum scattering mechanism doing that alone then unifies physics! Am I on the wrong planet?

Peter

doug,

Ooops, make that Pascal! I don't think pressure is measured in Pasteurs!

"So the motivation of the fast moving observers experiment is that each observer would have a different notion of what that moment in time is, according to special relativity. If the two satellites that are making the measurements are approaching each other at relativistic speeds, then an observer on each satellite would have the opinion that their measurement took place before the measurement of the other observer. If we wanted to take quantum mechanics literally then there is an open question - a paradox of sorts..."

The absurdities of special relativity (consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate) often plague researchers but in the end the old harmony is restored:

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

A fast moving observer will encounter signals more frequently. The other clock will then APPEAR to tick faster. It will however be ticking at the same rate.

This is true within any medium rest frame (inertial system). But signals are re-scattered to local c on entering ALL dielectric systems.

I'm at a bit of a loss how this apparently quite simple dynamic and it's implications don't seem rational to so many. Can somebody please explain why?, or falsify it?

Was I away when aliens attended all schools and removed those cells required for dynamic assimilation. Was it to protect us from ourselves? Or is it just me who doesn't understand?

Peter

No, no, no.

YES!

Does anyone understand CIG?

Light is constant only when it is light at full speed. "c' is the max, but mass can travel at many percentages thereof. We can call this Dark Matter at a certain speed, or any one of the known particles. It is Dark Matter because the mass when attempting to escape the sun's gravitational pull, is held back to a certain degree and cannot reach full "c" value. The result is a field density not quite the vacuum (Dark Energy - which has reached full "c" value). This is why the halos appear near gravitational massive bodies. [those massive bodies can be removed away from the Dark Matter field leaving the field alone in a seemingly empty area of space, to interact with whatever, whenever]

The rate of traveling mass determines its properties, its field densities, its manifestation into any number of cosmological non-constants, spacetime curvatures, and new volumes of varying densities of space. This is what is meant when I say thet CIG combines E=mc2 with spacetime. MTS

The spectral lines of absorbtion are where two varying field densities meet and attemtpt to find some equilibrium with each other.

Each of these spectral lines could be considered a new field, even a new particle by CIG's definition. Each line should have its own rate of travel that was the cause of the line becoming the line.

The photons emitted from the sun start with mass, and lose that mass and become spatial. The spatial propagation (massless photons) propagates (only the propagation, not the entity itself) (similarly the water stays put while the waves transfer the enegy) through space and when the propagation reacts with a body (i.e. a sun tanner on the beach), re-equalizes into matter again.

We can capture the massless photons and weigh them, showing that they did carry mass energy, traveling in the the form of Dark Energy or near Dark Energy propagation. Enclose in a glass sphere a little water, some dirt, some seeds, etc. and let only light through the glass. The seed will grow, the shere will become full with biological matter, and the only thing we let inside was light. The end result will be a sphere with greater weight. We have weighed the photons (Dark Energy) as again they have become mass.

For a reaction to take place there must be a Time Dis-equalibrium. A purely isotropic vacuum field will not react with itself.

MTS

Don't forget the CUPI quantification.

doug

Peter,

"A fast moving observer will encounter signals more frequently"

Yes. Similarly, an observer running along the fence will encounter poles more frequently, which means that the speed of the poles relative to him is greater (than that in the case when he is just walking).

Roger Barlow: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the light source with speed v is:

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c/L)(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c+v is the (variable) speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. Special relativity is violated.

Pentcho Valev

The Lorentz transforms are equally valid whether one is moving toward the source or away from the source. The solutions for time dilation and length contraction are identical for equal by opposite velocities of the observer. In special relativity the equation e=mc2, where e is total energy, is possible only if the direction of travel of the observer is irrelevant.

James Putnam

Pentcho,

Comparing apples with crocodiles can never make logical sense.

Do fence posts propagate in the frame of the car driving past them? I suggest they, or impact vibrations can only do so if the car interacts. The observer in the car can have no idea of the spacing of the posts if he does not account for his speed.

We have been being quite stupid in not accounting for our own speed in calculating quantum state, or 'speed of the posts' if they are moving (you see the weakness of your analogy, light 'propagates').

Peter

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

An exaggeration? No. The idiotic concept of time introduced by special relativity has been paralyzing physics for a very long time. Actually everybody is avoiding it like plague but officially scientists have to regularly sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and pretend to believe the story of the travelling twin who returns younger than his sedentary brother:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

Etienne Klein: "On pourrait s'attendre à voir la cosmologie confirmer la vision d'un espace-temps statique telle que la prône la relativité restreinte. Il n'en est rien. La quasi-unanimité des physiciens s'accorde aujourd'hui sur des modèles d'univers particuliers, dits de big bang, dans lesquels on peut définir un temps cosmologique, lié à l'expansion de l'univers. Sans pour autant s'identifier au temps absolu de Newton, ce temps cosmologique partage avec lui la propriété d'être universel : des observateurs qui ne sont soumis à aucune accélération et ne subissent aucun effet gravitationnel mutuel peuvent en effet synchroniser leurs montres, et celles-ci resteront en phase tout au long de l'évolution cosmique."

Pentcho Valev