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

      "Seeing 'relativity' as all packeged up, done and dusted is wrong. Einstein didn't do so ..."

      Yes, he did.

      Special relativity is the special case of uniform motion of which Einstein ruefully said that "relativity" is a poorly chosen label, since it is a theory of the absolute.

      General relativity that extends Newtonian mechanics to accelerated motion is the incomplete version of Einstein relativity, as he intended it to be. It is a theory of gravity, however, unrelated to your model.

      Until you understand the mathematics of special relativity, Peter, I am afraid you are just kidding yourself. Don't try to kid others who have actually studied the subject -- no, the truth doesn't hurt; it liberates.

      Best,

      Tom

      • [deleted]

      • Post #186

      Tom,

      "Until you understand the mathematics of special relativity.." There's that same old cracked record. How many times? I understand it just fine thank you! You seem to think that means I MUST also believe it over any other equally complete formulation. I don't, and Einstein's final paper never claimed what you do.

      Your closed mindedness ensures you'll remain wrong and that's that.

      The scenario I set out is still there for analysis. You avoid it as it will show your beliefs to be nonsensical. Your only option is to try.

      Its ironic that the truth you deny would SAVE SR from death by it's inconsistencies. The evidence will keep on building, i.e. this on isotropy from a recent paper;

      AE; "...the most careful observations have never revealed such anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical non-equivalence of different directions. This is very powerful argument in favour of the principle of relativity."

      "Against Einstein's assertion, modern authors like Wilheim, Wesley or Levy consider that the anisotropy of the one way speed of light can be indirectly established by measuring the absolute velocity of the solar system using different methods: Vaucouleurs & Peters, Rubin, Conklin, Henry, Smoot et al, Gorenstein & Smoot, Partridge, Monstein & Wesley, Marinov, Torr and Kolen, DeWitte, or Cahill & Kitto.

      Fundamental tests of special relativity theory purporting to demonstrate the invariance of the speed of light were based on erroneous ideas. Múnera shown that Michelson interferometers reveal small but significant effects of the Earth's absolute motion, but only when they are operated in a dielectric. Cahill & Kitto analysed the old results from gas-mode interferometers and revealed an absolute speed of 369 ± 123 km/s. A more recent evaluation by Cahill yielded 420 ± 30 km/s, in excellent agreement with the cited experiments and with the speed of 365 ± 18 km/s determined by the COBE satellite ..empirical results provide weighty arguments in favour of the anisotropy of space. The small quantity v/c derived from the absolute speed of the Earth is compatible with the classical experiments: Michelson & Morley(1887), Miller (1925/26), Illingworth (1927), Joos (1930), Jaseja et al (1964), etc. Indeed, the space is quasi-isotropic."

      You clearly fully swallowed the propaganda Tom, so stick with your belief based version of 'science' and refuse to look at anything that may challenge it if that's what you wish. But you should stop fooling yourself it's science. You've offered ZERO scientific falsification of my hypothesis. I'll stick with the Scientific Method; NOTHING is beyond challenge, and the MORE consistent version is always better.

      Peter

      "'Until you understand the mathematics of special relativity..' There's that same old cracked record. How many times? I understand it just fine thank you!"

      Demonstrably Peter, you do not. No matter how many votes you solicit for your essay from people who also don't know the foundations of classical physics, you still don't understand relativity.

      If you did, you would see that special relativity, which is specifically formulated for observers in an unaccelerated frame of reference, is not and cannot be compatible with your measurement framework which demands an instantaneous change of reference frame between observers. Quantun mechanics solves this problem by normalizing the time parameter, c = 1. How do you solve it? --

      "All spin can then involve OAM, requiring two poles ('states'); clockwise / anti-clockwise. Only one state is 'measurable' at a time, so is 'observer dependent'."

      The conservation of orbital angular momentum is not observer-dependent; it is a symmetry principle expressed physically as Newton's third law of motion. That is why the time parameter in quantum mechanics is set to 1. I won't rehash how Joy Christian has solved the problem with a topology possessing only a simple pole at infinity. Point is, were you to work it out in a mathematical theory, you would find that you are also normalizing t to 1. Your parameters and results do not differ from the results of conventional QM, though you have obscured that issue with a lot of things that don't matter.

      Best,

      Tom

      • [deleted]

      • Post #188

      To,

      I know you'll believe what you want to believe irrespective of evidence, but for anybody not bored with reading I'll explain again;

      Transforms between inertial systems are not 'instant'. They are 'accelerations', like jumping onto a moving bus. B Now focus on reality; Consider Harry 'propagating' at 3^6kph towards Tom and Dick. All have watches ticking at the same rate. Now if Tom jumps on the back of a bus moving at v towards Harry, but Dick doesn't, it doesn't mean that Harry is 'approaching' both Tom and Dick at the SAME speed! Einstein's maths suggest 'yes'(ish!) as he couldn't find another option.

      But in my schema the bus is a REAL inertial 'system', so in it's own 'rest frame' when not accelerating. Harry's giant clock will APPEAR to be going faster to Tom than t Dick as Tom is approaching it! OK? Nothing challengable so far.

      Now Harry hasn't changed speed, so is doing closing speed c+v wrt the bus, BUT, as he reaches the bus and jumps on at the front he has to decelerate by v to SLOW DOWN to the bus rest frame (not 'instantly' or he may compress too much!) Only once IN THE BUS's LOCAL inertial system does Harry do c wrt the bus (and wrt Tom).

      But Harry is now doing c-v wrt Dick, who's still standing at rest in his initial rest frame watching the bus disappear! Sound does EXACTLY he same. It was only as Einstein, searching for 'LOCAL REALITY', couldn't commit himself to seeing inertial systems as LOCALLY REAL (as he didn't know about the electron domain limits) had to settle for the mathematical description alone, misguiding most. he maths work just fine, but they have NO DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE to the physical process. The LT is simply when high relative speeds force high electron density so wavelength approach the minimum; gamma.

      Now I know that's entirely unfamiliar to you, like preaching christianity to a muslim, but it none the less proves the SR postulate AND Einsteins final 1954 description, and WITHOUT all the paradoxes and inconsistent evidence!

      So you're again quite wrong Tom, I DON'T need c=1 as in my schema there NO PROBLEM TO SOLVE! The logic is finally complete without those issues. Yes. I do understand the maths and 'geometry' used in the old SR interpretation, but it means nothing to nature.

      Now please address the scenario for flaws in any response. Just repeating your beliefs is meaningless 'chanting'.

      Peter

      You're right that this is entirely unfamiliar to me, Peter.

      Dear Peter,

      just a question: I'm confused why you say``Earth's population has doubled after 2020''... the indications now are that the population growth should stop before 2050, stabilizing around 9-10 billion people. Just wondering whether you have a particular reason not to trust these estimates or yours was just an unimportant remark, put for stylistic/rhetorical reasons...

      anyway best luck,

      Flavio

      Flavio,

      For Earth's future population I chose the ~90th percentile of the many estimates, but trivially to remind us that we don't 'know', so may have serious problems from many more areas than just climate change. I recognize stabilization as a low-end scenario.

      The curves I've seen give little indication of that yet (but didn't add the putin factor!) Have you seen better data? My point is anyway that treating symptoms almost certainly won't advance us enough. Why not then take the fundamental quantum leap in unifying our understanding of nature if available?

      Best wishes

      Peter