Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Edwin. Sure I'd like a drink. Over there? ... OK, but this better not be a zombie tavern.

Hertz's ideas really sound like the river model of gravity, which is where I ended up in my essay, with the vacuum behaving like a compressible fluid. I have no idea to what extent Hertz's ideas might need to be absorbed into gravitational theory.

I think your expectation of simultaneous time corresponds to time in quantum mechanics, which is classical. Perhaps it is curious that space and time are common to classical and quantum theory, but this allows the underlying quantum ether to be distinguished from what we call the real world. Anyway, I agree because I concluded that the ether operates in classical time, and that relativistic matter is energy transformed out of the ether, so that relativity is a secondary characteristic of the ether.

Cheers,

Colin

    I do not think your approach calls my approach into question.

    In my own thread I have written the following:

    "Regarding the idea of considering relativity in one frame only, this seems to correspond to Bell's "how to teach special relativity" paper, where the main point is also that one gets much better intuitions about his thread between rockets example if one analyses it in a single frame, instead of switching all the time between different frames and confusing oneself in this way."

    "My intro to relativity http://ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/LorentzEtherIntro.pdf may be interesting in this context too. I use there the Lorentz transformation, with the speed of sound instead of c, in a single frame to construct a Doppler-shifted solution of the same sound wave equation."

    So, you see in the question of using only one frame I agree with you. (On the other hand, I see no point in deriving transformations - if you guess a transformation, it is as good.)

    In general, I'm not somebody who likes to praise other people in a scientific discussion. If I start to praise, this should be something exceptional. I write if I see something to criticize. Once, in this case, my criticism is about a quite secondary question, it means I have not seen something more serious to object.

    Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman ,

    I really enjoyed reading your essay. The fourth dimension of time is something we never understood very well. I have different opinion about time. I showed in my essay. Time is quite different when you see in GR, thermodynamics, and in quantum Mechanics. I would like to know what do you about time; an absolute entity?

    I wish you luck.

    Best,

    Priyanka

      Dear Victor,

      I enjoyed your first sentence and fully endorse your second above. Your third and fourth are very gracious. I'm not sure what exactly confounds you about "all light propagates in local gravity", so I'll try to restate it.

      The statement "all light propagates in local gravity" is factually correct. Light deflects and diffracts, as seen during eclipses, in the local gravity of the sun. Light participating in the Michelson-Morley experiment propagated in local gravitational field of the earth, the dominant local source, so the static experiment, located in the MM-laboratory, was in the true local rest frame with v = 0 origin and c = speed of light. Any moving object in this 'rest'-frame will effectively see c v . If we identify the local gravity field as the 'ether', the medium of propagation for light, then we predict the null result of the MM-experiment. And when applied to Einstein's railway gedanken experiments, the station becomes the rest frame, and the rail-cars are moving in the rest frame. All light moving in the local gravity propagates with speed c, independently of the speed of earth thru space, etc.. The axiom that the speed of light is relative to each moving rail-car is incorrect. Steven Andresen, in the following comment, says the same thing:

      "Yes, gravity as Ether. Gravitational fields act as preferred reference frame. And to be preferred reference frame is a battle won by the larger dominant local mass. A car submits to the Earths preferred frame. The Earth submits to the suns preferred frame. Unless you are very very close to the car, or close to the Earth. Nearby Photons submit to the Earths Gravitation field as a preferred reference frame, they can be thought of in terms as being trained by Earths gravity, giving mmx results."

      Your response on your page contained, "I have not yet found time to digest your essay." I'm glad you persevered. As for charged particles, the mass and charge differ from light, but the Lorentz transform applies to the relativistic (kinetic) energy in Euclidean space. After getting the particles to the collision point, the physics of interest occurs in only one time dimension, the time of collision.

      You also say:

      "My challenge to you is to write a description of space - gravitation without the bloody Einstein field equations. Help me out. Where is the simple calculation for the correction factor to keep the clock on a geostationary satellite synchronized with my watch?"

      I can write a description of space without the bloody Einstein field equations, although it can be shown to be essentially equivalent to those equations. And I wanted to treat the GPS timing, but "9 pages!" Tom Phipp's explanation of GPS clarified things for me [my reference 9]. He made one major mistake concerning the Hertzian equations, based on his understanding of QM, but I have corrected that in my essay.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Steve,

      I'm awfully glad I saved your comment. [I also had it up in another window that had not refreshed.]

      I essentially agree with almost every word in your lengthy comment and very much look forward to reading your essay.

      Good luck in the contest.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman.

      Dear Philip Gibbs,

      I'm glad I designed a Tavern you would be happy to frequent. You certainly designed a forum that I am happy to frequent. But I wish those who say Einstein would not have agreed so readily would point out which specific point he would've argued. Of course I could have argued for Einstein, but 9 pages! Since I'm arguing against him, to argue for him would waste space I cannot afford. And those who have most interest in this essay can argue for him themselves.

      The problem I address in the EndNotes is that Einstein's view changed radically over his career, so I try to focus on 1905, although the Tavern keeper pulls things from 'whenever' he needs to. You mention Poincare and Einstein living in a time when setting conventions was important for practical reasons, but over a century later we still teach relativity pretty much as presented by Einstein, so I don't think those reasons still hold.

      I'm glad you know that Maxwell's equations can be made Galilean invariant. Most physicists seem not to know that Maxwell's equations can be made Galilean invariant. I did not, and I've seen the arguments used as justification for Lorentz. Again you quote his GR which was a decade away in 1905. The gravito magnetic field is indeed dynamic so it doesn't form a fixed background.

      You discuss "up to the point where space-time breaks down". I am not convinced that current ideas of 'space-time' are valid, but that seemed outside an essay focused on 1905.

      Thank you for your very kind remarks. I read your essay early, and will re-read and comment on your page.

      Best regards, and good luck in the contest.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Ilja Schmelzer,

      As I noted in my endnotes, the condensed matter approach [Volovik, etc.] treats the speed of light analogous to the speed of sound, and thus 'ether'-dependent. For various reasons I chose not to introduce variable speed of light into my essay, despite that Joao Magueijo and others view this topic as important.

      I'm glad you do not think my approach calls yours into question. I could not tell and surmised that from your crackpot comment.

      I'm also glad you agree about using one frame. You may see no point in deriving transformations, but some I have discussed/argued with in the last year insist that the very existence of the Lorentz transformation (always derived in special relativity in terms of two time dimensions) implies two inertial reference frames. They denied it could be obtained from one until I showed them by deriving it.

      Regardless, I complimented your essay very highly and gave you a 10 to give you visibility in the contest. It seems to be working well for you. Your discussion is very high level both mathematically and physically, and I hope that the material you reference goes into more low level detail.

      As for your last paragraph, I can understand your point. It is a personal preference. I was raised to view legitimate praise as a lubricant that smooths conversations. Your last two sentences are enough praise for me.

      Good luck in the contest.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi dear Eugene!

      It's Nice to meet you again and to hearing you.

      You are one honest critic of physical science and same time one pen master (as much I can judge with my poor English!) Any science quickly will fall into different kind of speculations without of objective criticism. Meantime it already has happen with our main science and ours criticism hardly can change here anything. Why and who does it resolutely, - we can only made different suppositions, that will stay for us only, as the global apathy to natural science in the public now dominate in generally.

      Your work is very attractive by style and narration and it deserves on high score without discussion!

      And, you have concretely asking my opinion on your interpretation of SR. So, what can I say on this matter, or suggest you something useful than I believe it is right? (Even if you will see it will useless for you!)

      So, in my opinion, on this question no need to refer to any serious mathematics, to be prove something, as per as here we have deal first of all with the cognitive misunderstandings.

      If we will clearly understanding what goes on from the causal aspects, then we can use only some elementary algebra only. Maybe you can find something useful with this plan (after finish of this battle of course!)

      from here

      Good wishes!

        Hi Edwin

        You find agreements with me ? that makes two of us then. I've read your essay twice and I believe I well comprehend many of your intended points. And I might even be able to infer from it, opinions you only hint towards. Like a variant C, a consequence of photons being carried along with, trained by gravitational bodies in relative motion C+V, which serves as the photons preferred frame. I have developed a view that translates yours very well. But that's not to say I couldn't benefit from a third or even forth read. Deep subject, lots of meanings, some of which are only subtly inferred.

        I expect you will appreciate this

        Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, two fundamental theories of one world. However QM and GR have clocks in common, in terms of clocks being a study in QM (made of QM), and GR being a study of clocks (time dilation). Two fundamental theories, servicing one world and now one device? QM might be surmised, a study of forces. GR might be surmised, a study of time.

        Clocks can be thought of as possessing a split personality. They possess a back end mechanical spring, the study of which might be termed QM force. They possess front end hands considered a measure of GR effects time dilation. These split personalities however are connected via a shaft, which makes their respective studies of force and time an equivalent. Which makes perfect sense in terms of the spring drives the clocks function. My earlier message coined the term "force dilation" which represents this property of the spring, which stands equivalent to the term "time dilation".

        Force dilation a quantity which is entirely equivalent to effect of time dilation? Which term is more fundamental, or carries more useful meanings? Force dilation is a property of the spring which drives the clock, so that places it at the heart by virtue of being attached to cause. It causes the clocks function, the clock hands but follow. The front end of the clock is superfluous in terms of cause, like a puppet dictated to by a puppeteer. Time, a puppeteers puppet? Not flattering I know, but it makes my intended meanings clear.

        Substitute the term of time dilation for the equivalent term of force dilation, then General Relativities effect is translatable as Quantum Mechanical effect. Theory can then be summarized in terms of, Clocks are QM devices (made of QM) which measure variable QM behaviour (force dilation) in relative motions and relative gravitational environments. One fundamental theory of the world, one fundamental theory that describes all behaviours exhibited by clocks.

        QM is a study of forces, and relativity is redressed as a QM study of forces of bodies in relative motions and relative gravitational environments.

        Relativity boils down to being merely the study of the modulation of QM forces.

        Steve

        • [deleted]

        • Post #115

        Steve,

        by the same reasoning, two identical parent radio-isotopes are created in the furnace of an exploding old star billions of years ago. One is captured by the gravitational proximity of a nearby star and its "spring" remains tense to act as a brake on its decay half-life. The other is ejected on a diverging trajectory from gravitational proximity into interplanetary, or even intergalactic space, and its spring relaxes releasing the brake and the rate of half-life decay rapidly increases. So how did the current census of radio-isotopes on earth survive to become part of the accretion disc of this generation solar system, in the first place?

        The Pu238 RTGs that power the Voyager twins, have exceeded their design working life as engineered in the earth's gravitational domain, by nearly a factor of 3. If it were simply gravitational effect of rate of response, not a change in the speed of time by proximity, Voyager 2 would have gone black long before it crossed out of the solar system. Instead it continued operational power level production for much longer duration of signal reception in the proximal speed of earth time. GPS arguments can be ambiguous on the matter, but not deep space radiological decay rates which do not calculate as suffering any measurable change. That argues strongly that time is local to particulate matter, and globally is a compendium of a multitude of quantum-times, like a vast Fourier Transform. jrc

        Hi Jrc

        Thank you for the message

        There are differences in our terminology, and I wonder how different our perspectives might be. I'll have to read your essay, and see if I can tune into your method of thought. You have posed me a question I am not aware of specific parameters, like the half life of radio-isotope and in relevance to solar-system formation. Your radio-isotopes likened to windup clocks with variable expiry dates, dependent on relative gravitational environments and velocities.

        You say

        "spring" remains tense to act as a brake on its decay half-life."

        and

        "spring relaxes releasing the brake and the rate of half-life decay rapidly increases."

        These expressions are quite different to mine "tense, relax, brake". The parameters I specify define force, to make comparative of two clock springs relative positions. Those parameters are force over distance equate newtons. I coin a term "force dilation" which is effectively expressed as newtons.

        You present a real world example, voyager twins. I will have another read of this in the morning. See if I can relate

        Steve

        Steve,

        I was actually presenting a rationale in the first paragraph that follows yours; ie, that gravitational fields effect response rates in a classic Newtonian time frame. And pose the question of survival of radioisotopes across the billions of years in extremely low gravitational environs.

        The second paragraph briefly introduces the findings by NASA of their Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator programs; ie, that half-life decay rates of elemental radioisotopes remain unaffected by change of proximity to dominant gravitational domains. (Keeping in mind that though much is known about radioactivity, there is still no hypothesis as to why some elements are radioactive.) And the NASA findings agree with a real, physical time dilation as predicted by GR, otherwise the RTGs would suffer shorter working lives rather than the extended ones operationally, which was like a surprise bonus to mission engineers.

        I do not want to detract from Ed's long efforts, and agree with much of his field theoretical thinking. But GR is not negated entirely by the arguments of gravitational field effect alone. jrc

        Edwin,

        Your essay format of a posthumous discussion between geniuses is delightful. I used such a format in describing time as a quintessential, existential precondition on page 5 of the Reference to my essay.

        I question whether or not the theories propounded by the 'geniuses' are mind-dependent and, if so, cannot be verified objectively.

        While I am not qualified to comment on the merits of your mathematics, your rationale is clear and persuasive. Technical expressions do tend to broaden the definition of the evaluation criterion that essays should be 'non-specialist', but I can live with that.

        I have no difficulty in prefacing The Nature of Time with the term 'Fundamental', but this raises the question as to whether any fundamental concept necessarily stands in precedence to Time.

        It is reasonable to assume that Time and Existence are coincidentally dependent insofar as neither can qualify as the single most fundamental component of reality without reliance upon the other. You have elected one and I the other.

        Good luck. I shall look for your name amongst the high rankers.

        Gary.

          Dear Colin Walker,

          Having re-read your essay I find it chock full of interesting things. I briefly looked at "the river model of black holes", and it seems somewhat a generalization of Hertz's idea in that it adds bivectors for rotation, whereas Hertz assumed only a velocity vector representing flow through the local ether. I find it interesting that the escape velocity (of the 'river') flattens space, although I've not had time to study Gullstrand and Painleve's work. Hamilton and Lisle mention "the picture of space falling like a river into a black hole may seem discomfortingly concrete." It seems to bear resemblance to Cahill's dynamical 3-space, and to an FQXi essay about three years ago. I grant that the math seems to work, but I have trouble visualizing the physical reality of the process, especially for many body problems. Perhaps I'm too comfortable with Faraday type 'field lines of force'. The extension of Hertz's ideas to gravity are represented in my equations (5). This is a flat space model that, when iterated, yields the full Einstein field equations.

          Thanks again for an interesting paper and for your remarks on my essay.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Priyanka Giri,

          Thank you for commenting on my essay. I've now read your essay. You conclude that "our mind is bound by what it accepts as correct." In your essay you discuss "mind concludes things classically but works quantum mechanically." That may or may not be correct. You refer to 'no object traveling at the speed of light', and then ask about entanglement. You state that space-time has been the most basic element in our universe. That may or may not be correct. Similarly, the discussion of the direction of time, and the measurement of time. Also that quanta of the inflaton field are as large as the observable universe; and the information paradox of black holes. Even the decoherence of quantum superposition, singularities, infinite gravity, Schrödinger's cat and EPR paradox.

          So as you say, we cannot explain all the phenomenon was certainty. My belief is that many of these problems arise from false assumptions. My essay attacked one key false assumption, the idea that the speed of light can be attached to every moving object.

          I think you've established your point well in your essay, and I wish you luck in your career and in this contest.

          My best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear George,

          Thank you for your kind comment. I am not sure that criticism here can change nothing. Your essay is very well written and succinctly describes the problem. Many other essays do likewise. These essays are read by hundreds of people, which may not sound like much, but they are people who are competent to varying degrees and who tend to have open minds.

          I've observed over a number of FQXi contests that many authors who attack specific aspects of physics noticeably improve their arguments as time goes by. Part of this is probably due to having another year to hone their ideas, but I'm sure part of it derives from feedback on their essays.

          There seem to be a number of authors who feel that the current state of physics is a problem, and the problem may be getting worse. It seems that this situation cannot go on indefinitely, and things may loosen up and allow a new idea or two to enter the field. We can hope!

          My best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Gary Valentine Hansen,

          Thanks for your kind remarks and thanks for reading. I do think we are in more agreement than your comment implies. You conclude that space can hardly qualify as the most fundamental. Then you question energy. You suggest either relativity or quantum theory will have to give in order to achieve a resolution. Finally you say above that time and existence are coincidently dependent as neither can qualify as the single most fundamental component of reality without reliance upon the other. You say I have selected one and you the other.

          But I do not claim in my essay that time is the 'most' fundamental phenomenon. What I do is address the fundamental nature of time which has been confused since Einstein said 'simultaneity is relative'. Instead, I believe that a primordial field had do exist before time and space have any meaning.

          Thanks again for your comments.

          My best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          jrc

          You have raised some questions and I don't object at all. However I will mention that you have changed the terms and selected different scenarios, rather than arguing within specific terms raised in the essay, or my comments about clock springs.

          And I am having trouble understanding your comments and questions. I cant iron out what appear to be contredictions. The misunderstanding could be entirely my fault. The confusion could easily be mine. These conversations can be notoriously tricky, and it's so common to see people attempting to communicate these subjects (SR GR) while not even approaching a common understanding. That's why I keep my considerations and arguments within reach of an observation and measure. A clock spring communicates definable values of force, while the hands communicate measure of time. I can point to the shaft that connects the clock spring to the hands, and show that the proportional motion of one is proportional to the other. This ascribes an equivalence between expressions of force and measures of time, that's justified by observation and measure. Therefore it is not theoretical. And it is a much simpler system with less prospects for hidden variables than isotope radio active decays, which are little understood complex behaviours of complex systems.

          I think a fair challenge to my rationale would be better directed towards that to which I refer. Conversation can benefit from being centred upon an observation, measure. Rather than extrapolated terms and scenarios. Will you join me in a discussion about clock springs? If you will then perhaps we should attend my thread, if and when my essay is live, or your essay thread. Rather than commandeering Edwin's.

          Steve

          Steve,

          Clock springs I would treat as Edwin has, that they are a measure of energy of oscillations. And I had introduced radiological decay because Edwin's own comments contend that his model is compatible with GR, and much is. But the clock in GPS is the regular oscillation of Cesium atoms which increase to translate to 48,000 nanoseconds per day faster at orbital altitude then on Earth. So if gravtitational field effect allows that atomic frequency to increase, then it should also have the same predictable effect on the frequency of half-lives. So I think Edwin is on a right track and enjoyed his artistic license, but also agree with Philip Gibbs comments. Above all, that the good Dr. Klingman shows respect for the dignity of others and will always have mine. I've also done (what I felt was reasonably successful) modeling of this sort in a Cartesian measurement scheme, and find a lot of agreement with Ed's concept of real, physical field interaction, and the geodesics of GR being akin to worldlines of equilibrium if a field is reintroduced into the barebones, co-ordinate free geometrics.

          I'll just leave with one observation; ever notice that E=mc^2 is a statement of the inverse square law in different terms? Therefore, mass is energy decelerated from light velocity. It is still only a masse of energy until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume can be determined which exhibits the characteristics of matter. And that's where I very much agree with Doc. :-) jrc