Tom,

You forget the first thing we learn in science; believing B doesn't falsify A, however many believe B, and for how long. 'Mathematically complete' has also meant little since Copernicus. We now also need 'physical models' as 2 'mathematically complete' models may still conflict. Why not approach this with an open mind for once?

"The fact is, that in order for your model to be right, special relativity has to be wrong." Perhaps YOUR 'SR' has to be wrong Tom, Einstein's doesn't as he never claimed it was complete; remember "The entire (theory of SR) is contained within the postulates." If a more consistent physical mechanism reproduces the postulates with complete maths then the fact that 10^6 Toms believe version 'A' does NOT falsify version B, You must show it's inconsistent in itself NOT with 'A'. OK?

Now you suggest you refuted the independent maths I gave. You didn't even respond,- even when I flagged them up. Check back on 'spheres' and find fault now if you can. You won't. My post today to Anon explains why. The usual shortcut to 'frequency' cutting out delta lambda hides the real mechanism. All astrophysicists know that produces nonsense; i.e. only redshift as lambda/lambda makes sense.

Let me try explaining the unification in a different way Tom as your issue seems largely semantic.; SR is NOT 'wrong'. It's QM that bears the brunt of changed understanding. However the 'apparent' inconsistencies that dog SR (recognised by the majority if not by you!), even with the 'fields' of GR, can also be finally ironed out. Yes, for the dozenth time I know the original description well thanks, the problem is that YOU won't even look at any other. Well consider this alternative, and with an open mind please!; so falsify with logic and science not beliefs.

You and I are on different planets (lol) orbiting the sun. Voyager2 in the bow shock equidistant away sends a signal but I'm approaching V2 and you're receding. The parts of the signal heading for you and I take the SAME time to reach our equidistant atmospheres! - as they propagate at c in the frame they're in, that of the SUN! (the 'Barycentric' frame, which NASA well knows).

Now when the signals reach each of our ionospheres/atmospheres they are, as again NASA well knows (conclusive papers available), progressively re-scattered to the local c of the electrons and atoms at rest wrt each planet. Subject to altitude some birefringence is found (see J.D Jackson electrodynamics for extinction distances) which reduces to almost zero at the surface, because on EACH planet the speed of light is c wrt THAT planets' rest frame. i.e 'c' is LOCAL to each inertial system, as specified by AE.

There IS then a speed change, to the LOCAL c, PRECISELY measurable by the Doppler shift of wavelength. All we've done is re-interpreted entirely in line with Einstein's 1954 (not exactly 1905) paper, which removes ALL the apparent paradoxes. Now if you test that SCIENTIFICALLY you'll find it works perfectly, far more consistently than the 1905 '1st stab'. It's also infinitely hierarchical as truth function logic and the rules of brackets in mathematics.

If the 'signal' was a supernova it would be propagating at c wrt the ISM (Galaxy rest frame) until it reached our heliosphere and was scattered to our sun's local c. Astronomy again proves that beyond any doubt. Each inertial system in SR is then LOCALLY REAL as AE always wanted. The LT well describes the physical mechanism at the change-over at the domain limits, with plasma optical breakdown mode (density increases with relative speed) describing the exact gamma curve.

QM is then consigned to recursive stochastic quantum gauges. Uncertainty is (currently) incomputable complexity. Now my point is that Einstein himself may well have shouted 'Eureka!' on seeing this, but he thought, as all did then, that space was empty of particles to affect the changes. If the facts change then the theory can becomes clearer. Except for the few who'll always cling on to ancient myths, ignore proper science and avoid new facts! I think you really know better.

So please review. And honest scientific argument only please. Best wishes

Peter

"You forget the first thing we learn in science; believing B doesn't falsify A, however many believe B, and for how long. 'Mathematically complete' has also meant little since Copernicus."

Maybe to you. The first thing I learned in science is that only mathematics is axiomatically (i.e., formal logic) based. Hilbert's program (6th problem), to axiomatize physics, failed. That's why J. Bronowski's statement is the truest and strongest: "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses." This is supported in Popper's rehabilitation for science of Tarski's correspondence theory of truth; i.e., scientific facts become facts only in the correspondence between abstract theory and physical observation. If we follow the rules of objective science, we don't have to worry about how open our minds are; we have enough to do to keep the subjective judgement of our minds out of it.

"Tom, Einstein's doesn't as he never claimed it was complete; remember 'The entire (theory of SR) is contained within the postulates."

D'oh. That's what mathematically complete means. To Einstein, to Newton, to Copernicus, to Euclid, to Pythagoras. Oh, and to us.

It's general relativity that Einstein knew to be incomplete, because he only intended it to be an intermediate step toward a complete theory of gravity that subsumes quantum mechanics in a continuous field theory.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Avoidance of the questions wasn't and isn't a 'scientific' option. So enough subjective opinions on relative irrelevancies and semantics and on to the actual points and questions...?...

Peter

Peter, it is good to relate the essay topic to physics in the way you have. My views on quantum and relativity are somewhat mainstream but I still think there is much to be gained from exploring alternative views. Good luck

    Phil,

    Thanks. That's an unexpected view. How do you reconcile the time issue between QM's 'absolute' and SR's 'relative' versions. I assume you disagree that unification is the 'holy grail'. How do you overcome the (Penrose etc) analysis of the 'chasm' between them preventing compatible mainstream views of both?

    Or do I assume yours is a passive acquiescence 'don't know' approach? (probably the most honest though looks the opposite).

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Peter, since you believe I have only "irrelevancies and semantics" in my argument while you of course have "actual points and questions," avoiding your 'points and questions' is really my only option, isn't it?

    What you find 'scientific' about that, I don't know.

    Tom,

    There's nothing scientific in avoiding a scientific point. I set out both the mathematics (as requested) and an alternative scenario for you to analyse and falsify. Refusing to do so will be fine but will reveal your true motivation, i.e. not scientific.

    Please also in that case refrain from falsely claiming you've 'refuted' propositions you've avoided even addressing. That's dishonest. Giving personal opinions based on beliefs is not 'addressing'. The honest proposition and questions remain there to be addressed. Writing nonsense instead won't wash.

    Peter

    What mathematics? And all the refutations are a matter of public record here.

    Tom,

    Your continued avoidance is public record. And again; saying; "I believe something else" is NOT 'refutation'!

    I've now reminded you 3 times where the maths was. It's on the 'Classical Sphere's' blog and was in response to your false suggestion that the model had no independent mathematical basis. As you didn't immediately respond I pointed you to it. It seems clear you saw it was entirely consistent and complete so again avoided a response. If you disagree; It's still there now, on one of the handful of longish string discussions with Richard which you joined.

    It was cleared by a mathematician (Richard also didn't find fault) and confirms my point that more than one 'mathematically complete' description can correspond to the evidence. The 'Discrete Fields' interpretation uniquely corresponds to and predicts ALL findings, i.e. not excluding inconvenient evidence such as superluminal jets, the kinetic SZ effect, KRR, QM, the VLBA findings, the Ecliptic Plane anomaly, etc etc.

    Now how about finding some honesty and addressing and discussing the scenario I presented. It's all there for falsification.

    Peter

    Hello Peter from Margriet - of the 'women are superior' fame !!!!!

    Although it's rather churlish of me to say so - after your most kind remarks abaout my essay !! - but haven't you "shoe-horned" in your favourite topic rather than address the issue of humanity's future !?!?!? Naughty boy !!!!!

    I've followed all the sciences since I was a child including quantum physics - pretty much at the layman's level mind ! - & recently (since learning to surf the net) stumbled across 'The Electric Universe' which claims that 'all' that is required to 'answer' most if not quite all of the unsolved physics dilemmas still facing us today is to factor matter's otherwise very well known 'electric' nature into our equations & they nicely solve. (Except all first & final causes.)

    Their suggestion is that the now truly vast body of evidence we have on our universe overwhelmingly supports the notion that it - our universe - is filled with plasma - ionised matter (as well as a lot of gas, dust & whole atoms & molecules too), & among other benefits with all this plasma in place (making up not only stars but whole galaxies too & everything in between) there is no need for either dark matter or dark energy as the electrified plasma accounts for everything that exists at the cosmological level & also all of the activities going on among & between all celestial bodies. Nor is there any evidence for either a Big Bang or black holes.

    Also according to their interpretation of the data before us, 'quanta' are also electrified objects.

    They critique current mainstream cosmology for trying to rely on gravity & Newtonian mechanics (things just banging into each other & blowing apart) to account for everything, when (again) factoring matter's well known electromagnetism into the picture solves it all.

    If you're interested, Google 'The Electric Universe' & 'Thunderbolts.info' - but you'd better be prepared for a shock - among other surprises, our sun (as are all stars) is a mostly hollow ball of glowing plasma ......

    Very best regards,

    Margiet.

      Margriet,

      I promise you QM isn't my 'favourite topic' by a long way! History has proved conclusively that despite our common view it's the advancement of understanding of physical nature that has always dictated and directed our development. Our psyche has rather followed behind, confounded by what it all means!

      I argue and demonstrate the power of advancement of THINKING methodology. Stop using brains as repositories, use them to find and challenge old assumptions and 'analyse' better. Our brains have the capacity, as Judy says; we just need to teach them how and practice it.

      That's what my essays's really about, making a real tangible LEAP in the right direction, realistically possible immediately! What other essay does so?! I'm a little sad I've failed to get that across (to so many the way my scores keep building but slipping back down). But of course we all THINK that we think outside all the boxes so ignore the greater possibilities. Energy without fossil fuels then slips back to the future a little more!

      Thanks kindly for reading it anyway. I hope you may at least have seen how the nonsense of QM CAN be understood classically, unifying understanding (I hope you saw the end note experiment you can do at home).

      Best wishes

      Peter

      "It was cleared by a mathematician (Richard also didn't find fault) and confirms my point that more than one 'mathematically complete' description can correspond to the evidence."

      Of course he did, because Gill also believes that four dimension phenomena can be completely described by three dimension geometry. And because he also does not understand what "mathematical completeness" means.

      The flaw, as I have always told you, is in reconciling physical results a posteriori with a mathematical explanation, vice predicting phenomena in the closed logical judgment of a mathematically complete theory.

      Science is done by the rational correspondence between theory and result, not by inductive conclusion.

      Best,

      Tom

      Margriet,

      I forgot to mention, I'm not 'shocked' by the Electric Universe and Thunderbolts project as I've been very familiar with Wal Thornhill and the whole groups work for some time. Mainstream theoretical doctrine mainly hates plasma as it doesn't 'fit' old models and is still poorly understood, yet it's the essential at the heart of most other physics!

      Many of the EU2014 lectures were authoritative and brilliant. I do however have to distance myself from the odd excess such as the 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' video which I think could undermine the solid credibility of the work for many. Why so many deny electricity in space, half the EM phenomena, is quite beyond me. Fundamentally the problems all stem from the prohibition of a field in the flawed original 'interpretation' of SR. The disciples grasp it like a lifeline!

      Have you read my logical cosmology paper explaining the coherent role of plasmas yet? There are various preprint links around.

      Best wishes

      Peter (copied to yours)

      • [deleted]

      • Post #178

      Tom,

      Gill, like you, couldn't fault my maths. You seem to infer that a helical path or a line of latitude described by a rotating (4) vector is '3 dimensional geometry'. Just to be clear; as rotation is motion, which requires time, they can't be just 3D. If you hadn't picked up on my rotation/translation dynamic then I can see the error. I invoke measurement as transfer of OAM on interaction, i.e. a '4D' process.

      I can't comment on whether Richard Gill or yourself understand 'mathematical completeness' but just suggesting others 'don't understand' never cuts ice. In itself its no guarantee at all of correspondence with nature or superiority over any alternative 'complete' mathematical description.

      I'll give you a simple example; a Doppler transform may be considered to reciprocate any two of speed, frequency and wavelength. There is then more than one 'correct' equation. i.e non intuitively for some, for sound moving between stationary media it is speed and wavelength that change. Now consider identical but co-moving media! .. And now for an observer changing frame WITH the signal.

      The fact that a formulation may be 'complete' is then clearly no guarantee it's physical validity across any number of possible physical cases. You set far to much store by it Tom.

      Finally; You infer, again quite wrongly, that my maths is not independent of the physical model. You'll find the maths in my published papers long before I even addressed QM Tom. Most critical parts are in my previous 3 essays and HJ/arXiv optics paper. You've developed a penchant for not checking and being hopelessly wrong Tom. It stems only from the narrow view of reliance on 'beliefs'. My thesis suggests that more holistic thought and analysis can help avoid that.

      Peter

      "I invoke measurement as transfer of OAM on interaction, i.e. a '4D' process."

      Except that isn't true. Orbital angular momentum is measured in 3 dimensions, and conserved, as easily explained by Kepler's third law ("equal areas in equal times"). A 4 dimensional measure framework requires either Minkowski space (analysis) or quaternions (algebra). One can't bluff one's way through these problems with buzzwords. It's fatuous to suggest that neither Gill nor I understand the mathematics.

      "I can't comment on whether Richard Gill or yourself understand 'mathematical completeness' but just suggesting others 'don't understand' never cuts ice."

      Since I already explained it to you, you should understand it.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #180

      Hello Peter,

      1. I read your essay without rating it. I stopped rating the essays a long ago because I feel confused about how the authors rate each other. me va me

      2. I understand that you like your essay. Your rating is good. You produced a great number of posts and were polite to everybody.

      I am sorry, I do not like your essay. I will try to formulate why.

      First, your essay has tables, charts, number values, etc. It looks like a final draft ready for publication. I am not a specialist in styles, but I can guess

      online interdisciplinary journal?

      I formulate it this way, the form is important, but the conceptualization is even more important.

      Second, I think your model assumptions are incorrect. You may want to find somebody in the field and have alive conversation and verify your asumptions.

      Every model is the model of something that exist or may exist in nature.

      You may look into the vorticity and gyroscope models in 2D and 3D and potential vorticity maps.

      I wish you all the best,

      M Iudin

        Tom,

        Now your point is specified I can identify what it is about my derivation you haven't picked up on. It's no 'bluff', just the 'different way of looking at nature' which I've been at great pains to describe (but which most just ignore). I know I need to find better ways to express it so I'll test another.

        First, consider standard quantum theory, where each (x,y,z) axis is considered and the relationship derived. You accept that the axes of A and B are related by opposing x axis (the particles head off in opposite directions) so ALSO a common y axis 'plane'. Now I focus on the detector electron field, and invoke a Bloch sphere with y as the 'equatorial plane'. We are now considering from the ELECTRON REST FRAME, so there is no translation, and the wavefront may interact, (at c of course) at ANY tangent point on the surface. That is a physical axiom. QM and Bell don't employ such things!

        As we know from EM, the y plane stays orthogonal to the detector Magnetic field, so rotates with the setting angle. Each electron has also many magnitudes higher energy than that locally impinging on it (the 'photon' energy must clearly be spread in the Schrodinger sphere surface or it would 'miss!').

        Now the nub; The OAM transfer detected is relative to the Y PLANE (spin), which varies non-linearly with LATITUDE between the plane (equator) and the pole. That non-linarity is geometrically (so mathematically) the cosine of the angle of the latitude from the y plane (sphere centre) forming the cones in my diagram (with time). Time is then built into the spin speed (dt), so dictates energy. Time does NOT further modulate the spin energy transferred in the interaction.

        I know that's an unfamiliar way of thinking of the mechanism, but think it through a few times and it's veracity becomes clear. The RELATIVE angles of A and B are then represented by two cones in a combined Bloch sphere. Malus's Law ('energy change with cos theta') is then obeyed, perfectly reproducing QM's predictions.

        A simple exercise may help with that; Plot the resultant cosine curve as electron x axis changes (latitude delta). Now square the cosines and plot again. You'll simply find another cosine curve! The relative spin flip (finding reversal) happens at the 'equator' where the setting angle is 90 degrees, clockwise switches to anticlockwise spin; simple discrete field dynamics.

        So now you see that time IS fully accounted for, but in a physical model not just mathematically. What is important is that the nonsense of EPR superluminality is made redundant. Now I daresay you'll check against the old SR interpretation, find a slight change is also required there, so object. That is however not a valid objection. If you check you'll find only the 'paradoxes' of SR are removed by giving inertial systems non infinite domains. The rest is intact, stronger, and now field based so consistent with GR.

        First let me know if you now understand the 4D derivation ('Hypothesis'). 'Believing', which means challenging old doctrine, can come later!

        Best wishes

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #182

        Margarita,

        Thanks for your interesting post. I agree rating is inconsistent between authors. I consistently use the criteria, which I think mine fits well, but we do wrongly tend to favour things we also 'agree' with. Mine seems to be love or hate, I've had many '1' scores with no comments upping the total. Few seem to identify fundamental 'cause' of change as opposed to 'symptoms', but history's clear, it's new understanding of nature and technology that brings revolutionary advancement from stagnation.

        On scores; I showed last year they mean little, but they do bring attention, needed in this case. The table is in the end notes, which is what they're for, and are findings of a REAL experiment! The essay discusses an important new conceptualisation of the real physical mechanism which QM entirely lacks, but is certainly nothing AT ALL like the draft scientific paper I promise! (you'd find an early draft buried on 'classical sphere's'.

        Your comments on "form/conceptualisation" and; "something that may exist" confuse me. I'm not sure if you realise that QM entirely lacks BOTH of those! It always has. That (we may agree then?) along with a concept of 'time' inconsistent with relativity, is why it retains the EPR paradox and no classical (physical) explanation. THAT is what I now provide; the simple physical geometrical model to reproduce the findings that 'QM' claims are only explainable in terms of 'probability'.

        You then say; "I think your model assumptions are incorrect. You may want to find somebody in the field and have alive conversation and verify your assumptions." Which assumptions? I find remove more (unsupported) hidden ones than I invoke, and I invoke only known science from other fields, and give references! They are;

        Electron spin flip, Gauged helicity, Non-mirror symmetry of spin, (see the ref's or just google) and the fact that opposite spin hemisphere's rotate in different directions (Earths N= anticlockwise, S = clockwise) with a non-linear distribution of rotation speed between pole and equator. All I've done is bring those coherently together.

        Now if you still do think any are incorrect do please identify so I can check!

        You also suggest I; "look into the vorticity and gyroscope models in 2D and 3D and potential vorticity maps" They were indeed early starting points, and all valid, viz; Imagine holding a gyro by the spin axis poles. Look from one end, it's clockwise, and opposite from the other. Now look at the middle, it's either spinning 'up' or 'down'. QM goes no further than considering a single snapshot. I just point out that the ends can be swapped (by switching EM field direction). Now imagine doing so, by switching the poles round between hands. You now find spin UP from the SAME 'particle', with conserved OAM! That inherent duality is what current QM doesn't recognise or accept!!

        Of course I've discussed it with many 'in the field'. Some recognise it and are scared that the beliefs embedded in their psyche may be wrong, most scream and look away. We can't advance science by checking it against past science to ensure it's the same! The model is scientifically falsified, but needs the 'new way of thinking' that Bob demonstrates reveals the answer, which allows unification of the two "great pillars" of physics, called the Holy Grail of science. I've identified that history shows that only that can let us escape from this rut and progress! In fact the changes to QM are quite small and reflect von Neuman and Godel's conceptions. Uncertainty is only relegated to the next gauge down. It's the implications for other physics that are wider.

        I'm disappointed I didn't get that across to all, and that you disagree. If it's the latter pleased do specify with what. It may be wrong or incomplete but I can't find where. Part of the value for all here is the wide falsification of hypotheses.

        If you wish more technical details do see my last post to Tom (under Doug 17/5 above) though Tom isn't 'in the field' and does have his own agenda. Thank you for expressing your doubts and giving me the opportunity to address them. I do look forward to any further specifics. Best wishes

        Peter

        This is hopeless, Peter. There are many ways of looking at nature, yet only way to do science objectively, and that is in the demonstrated correspondence of a theory that makes a logically closed judgment, to a physical result that records a precise measurement. Special relativity does that, and you can't "bend" it to suit you without breaking it. Special relativity cannot in principle be compatible with your model. I say again -- if your model is right, special relativity is wrong. I have been specific about that, from the beginning and all along.

        Best,

        Tom,

        Tom,

        There's the problem. Clinging to beliefs resolutely isn't science. Seeing 'relativity' as all packeged up, done and dusted is wrong. Einstein didn't do so as he knew that meant a closed MIND. In this case showing that one part doesnt completely model nature does NOT make the rest fall as you assume. It makes it stronger, but yes, it also makes it different to YOUR beliefs.

        I suggest you're exactly as wrong as J.J Thompson; NOTHING in science is 'done and dusted'. Einstein was right estimating; "less than 1,000th of 1%".

        It's perfectly possible for two theories to predict identical results, both 'logically closed and mathematically complete'. In this case mine is a close clone of SR, but has a few added clarifications and consistencies with nature (i.e. the 'apparent' 46c jets which you continually ignore, QM, etc etc.). Now the only bits of YOUR 'SR' needing changing are unimportant and pure assumptions.

        Just because slightly different (equally complete) maths is needed you run screaming in fear! If you examine it closely you'll find greater correspondence with nature. So your view of the QM solution is only distorted by your beliefs. That's what's dishonest. You can only challenge the veracity of my model by citing YOUR SR. That's no challenge Tom. But it's not 'hopeless', open your mind and see nature from one of those other ways of looking you agree exist! But use the SM instead.

        The real truth really does NOT HURT. Only fear of letting go hurts.

        Best wishes

        Peter