Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space

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

Pentcho,

If we allow that 'propagation' and 'relative' speeds may be different, then all the problems are solved and the flaw in the assumptions surrounding SR is identified.

If two birds in line approach your car head on, flying at 20mph, they're propagating at 20mph. If you are driving at 80mph, you are 'propagating at 80mph. If you meet? Then it all CHANGES, because the first bird finds it's speed has changed! A moment later so does the second. Your car does not however record the distance between them or frequency as being relevant to their propagation speed BEFORE contact. i.e. The car would need to be 'at rest' (0mph) for the calculation we rather stupidly use to be valid. The birds would then impact in turn at 20mph, so at a LOWER frequency.

The flaw in SR is then NOT in the postulates, as they specify propagation speed, it is in the silly assumption about time you identified above. Time signals will 'Doppler shift' on interaction (photons), just like the birds.

That is the DFM, and why it works logically and empirically. Do you have a better understanding of it now?

Best wishes

Peter

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

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

Pentcho,

What you are calling idiotic intrigued Max Planck, the man who made Einstein accepted. How can this be understood? Perhaps, we may blame in part Planck's reluctance to swallow alternative theories. Michelson's null result was not and is perhaps still not yet correctly digested.

Everybody expected empty space to behave like a sound-carrying medium and to accordingly show two-way behavior as demonstrated by Norbert Feist's experiment. Feist's data do actually correspond to the Lorentz formula: The two-way speed of the wave depends on the squared velocity of the medium.

Michelson didn't like Einstein's "monster" theory. Nonetheless, he hesitated to accept the perhaps only reasonable explanation of his null result:

Light is his own carrier in empty of matter space, which has no preferred point to refer to. Space just constitutes distances.

Feist was certainly wrong when he claimed that his measurement confirms the ether hypothesis. Instead, it shows that the dependency on squared velocity (as calculated with Lorentz gamma and adopted by Einstein) belongs to the disproved by Michelson ether hypothesis.

Eckard

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil II

Einstein's fundamental rationality-killing step: "the rescaled "local time" variable t' of Lorentz was "purely and simply, the time", as experienced by a moving observer":

Thibault Damour: "Textbook presentations of Special Relativity often fail to convey the revolutionary nature, with respect to the "common conception of time", of the seminal paper of Einstein in June 1905. It is true that many of the equations, and mathematical considerations, of this paper were also contained in a 1904 paper of Lorentz, and in two papers of Poincare submitted in June and July 1905. It is also true that the central informational core of a physical theory is defined by its fundamental equations, and that for some theories (notably Quantum Mechanics) the fundamental equations were discovered before their physical interpretation. However, in the case of Special Relativity, the egregious merit of Einstein was, apart from his new mathematical results and his new physical predictions (notably about the comparison of the readings of clocks which have moved with respect to each other) the conceptual breakthrough that the rescaled "local time" variable t' of Lorentz was "purely and simply, the time", as experienced by a moving observer. This new conceptualization of time implied a deep upheaval of the common conception of time. Max Planck immediately realized this and said, later, that Einstein's breakthrough exceeded in audacity everything that had been accomplished so far in speculative science, and that the idea of non-Euclidean geometries was, by comparison, mere "child's play"."

Poincaré could not take that step, although the Lorentz transforms (of which he was one of the authors) urged him to do so - the step led to the absurd conclusion that, as the observer starts moving towards the light source and, accordingly, the wavecrests start hitting him more frequently, the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer nevertheless remains unchanged:

Les écrits épistémologiques de Poincaré, obstacles à la diffusion de la relativité?, Vincent Borella, p. 74: "Pour Einstein le postulat de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à n'importe quel référentiel dans lequel elle est mesurée (ce qui est une expression du principe de relativité) est suffisant, alors qu'en fait, pour Poincaré, la vitesse de la lumière ne peut être constante que relativement au milieu dans lequel elle se propage, à savoir l'éther supposé immobile."

The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection, Olivier Darrigol: "It is clear from the context that Poincaré meant here to apply the postulate [of constancy of the speed of light] only in an ether-bound frame, in which case he could indeed state that it had been "accepted by everybody." In 1900 and in later writings he defined the apparent time of a moving observer in such a way that the velocity of light measured by this observer would be the same as if he were at rest (with respect to the ether). This does not mean, however, that he meant the postulate to apply in any inertial frame. From his point of view, the true velocity of light in a moving frame was not a constant but was given by the Galilean law of addition of velocities."

Pentcho Valev

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil III

Harvey Brown: "It is argued that the methodology of Einstein's 1905 theory represents a victory of pragmatism over explanatory depth; and that its adoption only made sense in the context of the chaotic state of physics at the start of the 20th century - as Einstein well knew."

The state was chaotic because in 1887 scientists failed (or refused) to see that the only existing theory able to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was Newton's emission theory of light stating that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter. Lorentz and Fitzgerald started to Procrusteanize space and time to fit the ether theory's false tenet that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter, and Einstein's special relativity was the final nail in the coffin of sane science.

Now it may be too late - "the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage" is perhaps lost forever:

It's Likely That Times Are Changing: "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage."

Pentcho Valev

"Einstein's proof that distant events cannot be unambiguously simultaneous (different observers, moving rapidly with respect to each other, may not always perceive the same time-order of events)."

This will perhaps never persuade me. If one assumes that there is a common now, then it is quite natural to me that observers may perceive pictures of reality that are affected as described by Christian Doppler for one-way propagation. Lorentz gamma was fabricated as to rescue the hypothesis that light is bound to some reference point of space. Michelson's experiment did not confirm this hypothesis. Unfortunately, nobody was ready to accept the consequence of the possibility that space has no beginning and no end and therefore no natural point to refer to.

Who is ready to accept that space is not a medium but just distances?

Eckard