Dear Lutz,
We are not living in space. We are surrounded by real atmosphere. There are not three abstract dimensions of height width and depth. There is one real infinite dimension. Infinity does not have an interior, an exterior or duration.
Joe Fisher
Dear Pentcho,
you are right. Lightspeed can be manipulated by lasers and also lateral confinement which is detrimental for relativity, SR and GR.
Only plane waves travel isotropically in space.
Best
Lutz
Dear Lutz,
"So, what is the truth in this cosmological enigma? (...) The question is answerable by solving the riddle of cosmological redshift."
Recently it has been shown that light in vacuum can be slowed, which gives strong support to both Halton Arp's "intrinsic redshift" hypothesis and "tired light" ideas:
"The work demonstrates that, after passing the light beam through a mask, photons move more slowly through space."
If something (the mask) can decrease the speed of photons, it is reasonable to assume that something else (quantum vacuum) can also do so:
NewScientist: "Vacuum has friction after all"
Paul Davies: "As pointed out by DeWitt, the quantum vacuum is in some respects reminiscent of the aether, and in what follows it may be helpful to think of space-time as filled with a type of invisible fluid medium, representing a seething background of vacuum fluctuations. Although the mechanical properties of this medium can be strange, and the image should not be pushed too far, it is sometimes helpful to envisage this "quantum aether" as possessing a type of viscosity."
Nature | Scientific American: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found."
In my view, loss of energy/speed is the only reasonable cause for the Hubble redshift (in a static universe). Slowly but surely the Big Bang money-spinner is approaching its collapse.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho,
these are very interesting citations. I cannot find your essay to rate.
Your ideas are deep and we should stay in contact for further development towards a physically satisfying cosmological redshift explanation as Hubble wished it.
Best
Lutz
Dear Lutz Kayser,
Pentcho Valev has been posting arguments against Einstein theory for years. He argues that the second postulate (constant velocity of light) must be wrong just for two experiments (Michelson and Pound/Rebka).
Pentcho follows instead Newton who imagined light emitted as particles. He didn't find support, and will perhaps not again submit an essay.
I disagree with Pentcho concerning the interpretation of Michelson's experiments 1881 in Potsdam and 1887 in Cleveland. Thomas Phipps Jr. and others who shed some light into the matter were ignored. My own rather slow progress of understanding has been scattered over several essays of mine.
I will read your essay carefully. Immediately I got aware of a few details I don't understand. They concern important questions like the history of mathematics as well as trifles like the question whether Copernikus (1473-1543) was Silesian. Weren't Thorn and Fromborg located in Pommern? Bruno was burned in 1600. On p. 2 of your essay, you gave a translation from Latin: "gravity force is proportional to the square of the distance between ... ". Shouldn't Kepler have written reciprocal instead?
Is there any necessity for calling just Gauss and Riemann "intelligent mathematicians" after writing "poor Maxwell"?
Was Schrödinger best characterized as a mathematician?
In all, I looked in vain for a more precise analysis including valuable hints to references.
Sincerely,
Eckard
Dear Mr. Blumschein
You have attentively read my essay and even found an error: Mea culpa; in the Kepler citation must read: "the reciprocal of distance squared". Thanks.
Kopernik was indeed born in Schlesien but was later Domherr in Ost-Preussen. I wanted to stress the apprehension of natural philosophers in the Middle Ages to publish to avoid the wrath of the mainstream authorities. Maybe Patcho does not write essays anymore for that reason.
I read with interest your essay and like a few remarks such as "Moreover, they use Heaviside's trick which tempts to unwarrantedly interpret results of complex calculations". This is right. He, not Maxwell coined the "Maxwell Equations" with a wrong Ampere's law and a nonexistent "displacement current"
Another good part is "Leibniz and Newton merely agreed on that acceleration is an absolute quality. Let's show Newton's mistake with the metaphor of an unlimited to both sides box [14]. Only if there is a preferred point of reference, it is possible to attribute a position to it. In space, such point is usually missing." However, I think you are helping the relativists defending their ideology. Newton was perfect in insisting on absolute velocities with reference to space. All astronomers are measuring peculiar motions of stars and galaxies. And we know that we are travelling through space with an absolute velocity of 371000 m/s towards the Virgo cluster. With the CMB zero this discussion is finally closed and relativity is dead.
You also warn about the mindless use of singularities in math. But you fail to mention that these singularities created by illegal divide by zero operations in Levy-Civita's tensor math have finally led to monstrosities like the big bang and black holes. These are purely mathematical constructs and misled physicists and a wide public to believe in such singular objects. They even claim to be able to imagine such singularities in space and time. Here you mathematicians have strong duty to warn urgently. Nature hates singularities; beware of them!
All the best for your future work
Lutz
Dear Professor Kayser,
Please find my comments to the more topical part of your reply here.
I just skimmed through your essay rather than attentively reading it, and I am largely agreeing with you. Because you maintain that Copernicus was born in Silesia I looked into http://polskiinternet.com/english/nicolascopernicus.html and found confirmed that he was born in Thorn (Torun) as Mikolaj, son of Koppernigk and Watzenrode.
Interestingly, "In 1514, the Lateran Council sought Copernicus's opinion on calendar reform."
While I cannot yet exclude that Thorn did belong to Silesia at that time, other sources attribute it to the kingdom of Prussia: "In 1466, with the Teutonic Order's defeat, Pomerelia became again subject to the Polish Crown as a part of Royal Prussia."
I just wondered because I imagine Thorn alias Torun located in what was Pommern, Westpreussen, or Posen for centuries but always far from Silesia. At school I learned to distinguish between Urstromtälern Glogau-Baruth und Thorn-Eberswalde. A grandfather of mine was born in Langenbielau/Silesia, A grandmother of mine was born near Bromberg. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerania#High_Middle_Ages_to_Early_Modern_Age
Wishing me all the best for my future work and calling me Mr. Blumschein does not hurt me much although I am already pretty old and my accordingly limited means and my sober style of reasoning seem to be different from yours. I would never say nature hates something. Nonetheless, I hope we will respect and support each other rather than quibbling.
Best,
Eckard
Dear Eckhard,
Kopernikus indeed was a countryman of your ancestors! His father's family came from a village in Silesia near Nysa, called Kopernik.
Wikipedia: "The father's family can be traced to a village in Silesia near Nysa (Neiße). The village's name has been variously spelled Kopernik,[8] Copernik, Copernic, Kopernic, Coprirnik, and today Koperniki."
So we are both right and happy. I am turning 76 and still active like you. By the way my ancestors were Teutonic Knights from the Koenigsberg area. (Fischhausen)
Since you are so deeply knowledgeable in science history, I have a question:
Who has invented symmetrical relativity the first time? Was it Poincare?
Best
Lutz
Dear Lutz,
My essay was downgraded immediately after I too frankly responded to your request concerning Poincaré. I should have added that Henry Poincaré at least vehemently tried to be critical towards Cantor's set theory.
Can you please explain what you meant with symmetrical relativity? I understand Poincaré/Einstein synchronization ABA as asymmetrical.
Best,
Eckard
Dear Eckard,
I graded your essay well long before I commented it. The more I read from your the better I comprehend your deep knowledge, and I admire it.
The Newton-Maxwell-Lorentz-Lamor relativity is always asymmetrical to an absolute rest frame (they called it aether, but it need not be ponderable). I.e. all other frames are to be considered secondary and velocities asymmetric to absolute space.
Poincare was frustrated that nobody was able to measure the absolute zero velocity frame. Therefore he postulated that all bodies move relatively and symmetrically to each other. A moves relative to B and B moves symmetrical relative to A. Einstein read this and declared it as his invention without understanding the problem. The problem is that it is false.
Correct is: A moves relative to 0 (Cosmic Velocity Zero) VA
B moves relative to 0 VB
A moves relative to B VAB = VA - VB
Best
Lutz
Dear Lutz,
Newton relativity sounds strange to me. I thought, in contrast to Leibniz, Newton imagined space as a substance, a scenario of God, something absolute. As Pentcho persistently tells us, the velocity of an emitted bullet refers to the emitter and not to the medium in which it moves.
Maxwell had reason to relate the velocity of light to a hypothetical medium because he understood light a wave like acoustic waves that relate to air.
Air is like a block; it has a point of reference, space has no reference point.
Therefore Michelson failed when he tried to measure how this point moves relative to earth.
Given you were right, and there was a preferred point or boundary in or of space relative to which A and B move. Did this matter for VAB? VAB is the relative velocity between A and B. We may arbitrarily decide counting it positive if the distance is getting shorter and negative else or vice versa. This is indeed a symmetrical relationship. Poincaré synchronization by Einstein ABA (or BAB) is an asymmetrical, lets say it friendly, convention.
Best,
Eckard
Dear Lutz Kayser,
you write:
„Since then millions of valuable mathematician 's and theoretical physicists' work-hours are spent calculating what happened during these first 1E-45 seconds and then with inflation and even accelerated expansion." So happely, as I am meteorologist, I am not wasting my time on that way.
I also agree with your attitudes that I intuitively applied in my work. I've also read some of your interesting comments to other participants. I'd like you to comment on my essay. As you know, predictions of meteorologists are easy to check. In predictions of my essay, there is no hiding behind the impossibility of the verification scientists` "clairvoyance".
Best Regards,
Branko
Dear Lutz,
It is a pleasure to read your essay. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Readers should seriously consider the importance of your historical presentation. My opinion is that there is substantial artificiality in theoretical physics. Good luck in the contest.
James
Dear Branko,
thanks for your kind and intelligent words.
I shall read your essay and comment it.
Best
Lutz
Dear James,
thanks for your kind message,
I am aware of your thoughts on Relativity from your published papers and share your concerns.
Let us break the chains of the relativity prison asap!
Best
Lutz
You wrote, "It shows an 800 pound gorilla (mathematics) can easily suppress a
small bird (physics) if nobody cares for a fair equilibrium. The mainstream Standard Cosmological Model, or Big Bang, with inflation and accelerating expansion is the result. It has no realistic physical background and based on a false redshift explanation." Well said!!! However, i don't think you went far enough. Dark matter is not just "transparent", but a fantasy or fudge factor of mathematical fiddling to bridge the gap between empirical data and currently accepted mathematical theory. Excellent paper!!!
Nick Percival
Dear Nick,
you hit the nail on the head!
One could go on and on with today's "fudge factor physics".
The dreadful cheating of the Nobel Committee using manipulated supernova data is remarkable. Nobel prizes are strewn over fraudulent physicists. The next case for the arctic "gravity waves" is pending.
Best
Lutz
Lutz,
That is a clear and coherent essay for those of us just observing the fields of physics and cosmology.
Some decades ago it occurred to me that the Big Bang model was nonsense, when I read that the rate of expansion is inversely proportional to gravity. Even someone with very little education in the subject would realize that if this intergalactic expansion is balanced by intergalactic contraction, there would be no additional expansion of the universe as a whole. What seemed evident is this is a modeling of a convection cycle of expanding radiation and contracting mass.
We can accept that gravity is "equivalent" to acceleration and still know the surface of the planet doesn't rush outward to keep us attached to it, so why wouldn't there be an opposite effect, where redshift is "equivalent" to recession?
One point I keep raising is that when they discovered these galaxies are redshifted such that we appear at the center, it was argued this was an expansion of space, not just in space and every point appears as the center, based on the premise of expanding spacetime. Which is total nonsense, since the time component doesn't increase! The speed of light doesn't increase in order to remain Constant to this expanding space. Of course, the Doppler effect would only work if there were more lightyears, not stretched lightyears. So we are to believe that space is expanding, based on the redshift of this intergalactic light and we can measure this expansion against a stable yardstick, based on the speed of that very same light!
Now we are the center of our view of the universe and so a compounding optical effect would explain this increasing redshift, why we appear at the center and why it goes parabolic, without needing dark energy to explain the curve in the rate.
I think one of the main problems for physics in general is that we perceive change as a sequence of events and so think of time as the point of the present moving from past to future. Which physics codifies by treating it as a measure of duration.
While the actual reality is a changing configuration of what exists, which turns future into past. To wit, the earth doesn't travel some dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns.
Duration is simply the state of the present, as events form and dissolve and not a vector external to the present.
This makes time an effect of action, not the basis for it and as such, is similar to temperature. Time is to temperature, what frequency is to amplitude. It is just that while amplitude en masse is temperature, frequency en masse is static and so isolated actions are measured. Yet the overall effect of change is cumulative, like temperature. A faster frequency/clock simply uses energy quicker and so recedes into the past faster. The tortoise is still plodding along, long after the hare has died.
This leaves space alone and space without physical properties to define or limit it has only the two non-physical properties of being absolute and infinite.
The state of this absolute equilibrium is implicit in the speed of light in a vacuum being constant. Since a clock would stop at the speed of light, if we were to place clocks around in space, the one which ran fastest would be closest to this equilibrium of the vacuum.
Meanwhile an infinite space wouldn't be subject to entropy, since energy radiated from one area would be replaced by energy radiated in from surrounding areas.
So then we have this infinite vacuum, filled with energy fluctuations and the two main features of this wave action are frequency and amplitude, i.e.. time and temperature.
Now any energy will express form, even if it is just frequency and amplitude. As such, energy presses outward and form is the definition pressing inward, since it is based on interactions of energy thus impeding.
This form then is both physical mass and sensory information. While the energy is dynamic and conserved, the form is static and transient. So the energy goes from prior form to succeeding form, as the form comes into being and dissolves. Thus the arrow of time for energy is past to future, while the arrow of time for form is future to past.
Think of a factory, where the product goes start to finish, while the production line is going the other way, consuming material and expelling product. Life is the same. Individuals go from being in the future to being in the past, birth to death, while the species goes onto the next generation, shedding the old.
So then tie this back to the galaxies, as mass forms on the perimeters and falls inward, getting ever more dense, yet radiating out much excess energy. Just as factories and people radiate much waste. Eventually what falls into the center gets shot out the poles as cosmic jets, or quasars.
All this energy to eventually solidify into new forms and start over.
So gravity is not just a property of mass, but the process of consolidation, by which energy coalesces into mass and so is not so much a particular force, as a cumulative effect of all that is pulling inward. A vacuum, just like energy released from mass creates pressure.
So the reason we can't find gravity waves is because we are not looking for the right thing. It is light.
Einsteins's Cosmological Constant is light. The balance to the attraction of gravity.
This is my somewhat accidental theory of everything.
I've entered in a few of these contests, but knew this one would really be banging my head on the wall, so didn't get motivated enough to try.
Good luck!
Regards,
John Merryman
Dear Lutz,
I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.
All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.
Joe Fisher
Lutz,
Great essay, which I'm very glad I got to. No time now for long discussions but well done. If you have to time I know you'll enjoy my own essay, and this video deriving a new cosmic redshift effect free of expanding acceleration.
9 min. VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift.
A better score coming, well deserved for well tackling this important subject.
Best regards
peter
