Ed,

You sly old dog, when did you become a bartender? I will be reading and re-reading this paper for some time to come! Many thanks. I was never taught the Hertz Equations that you present, so this will give me another set of tools to study and use. MANY THANKS!

When you went from equation 1 to equation 2, you changed from G to g. I'm guessing you did this to prevent confusion between the vector G and the scalar g. Quaternions would let you use bold typeface and regular typeface:-) The cross-derivatives that are in equation 3 are also easier to represent. I'm just sayin':-)

The arguments associated with the Maxwell-Hertz Equations being invariant under Galilean Transformation were very effective.

For me, the breaking of time symmetry that is associated with the GPS systems is a clue that something is fundamentally misunderstood. I see that you have a similar thought and have taken it to its logical conclusion. Namely that gravity represents a preferred local frame of reference.

This then leads to the return of a universal time which then eliminates all of the SR related paradoxes. I don't like to plug my own thinking in other author's forums, but I feel compelled to ask a question. I believe in a universal time that has two components as follows:

T = t*[cos(omega) isin(omega)] = t*[sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2} i(v/c)

Is this compatible with your thinking? It relates the phase angle to vI consider this to be a way to explain those pesky muons:-)

I was especially impressed by your insistence upon things that are PHYSICALLY REAL and can be measured. To me, the interpretation of null results is always a little questionable. I prefer a measurement to a logical deduction because the deduction requires an axiom.

If two theories make the same predictions but one is based upon something that is physically real whereas the other is based upon an axiom, I will choose the theory that is based upon a real thing. Occam's Razor would choose the axiom based theory because it is more simple. So, the correct theory can only be determined by finding a prediction where they make different predictions. You zero in on this with the niobium sphere and the lunar ranging data.

It might be a little unfair to ask AE why he did not revisit SR in view of his later insights. By that time so many people had jumped on the SR band-wagon that he probably thought it would cause more harm than good. Besides, science is self correcting. In this case, you are doing the correcting:-)

All in all, this is an exceptional effort on your part. WELL DONE.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

    Ed,

    There are a couple of typos I did not catch in the above post.

    "T = t*[cos(omega) isin(omega)] = t*[sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2} i(v/c)

    Is this compatible with your thinking? It relates the phase angle to vI consider this to be a way to explain those pesky muons:-)"

    Should be

    T = t*[cos(omega) isin(omega)] = t*[sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2} i(v/c)]

    Is this compatible with your thinking? It relates the phase angle to velocity. I consider this to be a way to explain those pesky muons:-)

    Best Regards,

    Gary Simpson

    Dear "Tavern Keeper",

    Sadly Tom Phippps has meanwhile died. When he the last time contributed to a FQXi contest, he was 90 years old. He would certainly appreciate you continuing and further developing his central ideas.

    I blame my outdated office program and my worsening eyes for some problems I have with your essay. Maybe your reference 14 on p.1 is just a typo between 1,2,3 and 5,6,7,8 on p.2 ? Maybe I overlooked the mentioned in the abstract name deHaas in the body of your essay. I may also have overlooked several hints in the text to the given references. Perhaps they were not overly important.

    Your message is clear and coincides with mine.

    Anyway, the 10 by the public so far seems to appreciate your courage.

    Having just finished my essay "Semi-fundamental structures", I hope you will get in a few days and use the option for commenting on it. I have not much time for reading essays and selected yours because I recall your exceptionally proficient comments in former contests. Your essay turned out to be closer to mine than to be expected from your abstract.

    Best,

    Eckard Blumschein

      Dear Jack James,

      Thank you for your kind comments. As you note, the standard SR perception of 4D space-time is problematical; Einstein's invention of multiple time dimensions even more so. Since FQXi page limits result in a lot of info being crammed into relatively few pages, those interested in this complex topic will probably find re-reading the essay worthwhile.

      I've read your essay and will comment on your page. I checked the Wiki definition of 'presentism', which appears to me to agree with the fundamental understanding of time as universal simultaneity.

      Thanks again for your comments,

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Gary Simpson,

      Thanks for your comments. I'm glad you intend to re-read the essay. It is packed full of info, therefore difficult to fully absorb in one reading. I worried about that, but first responses seem to imply that it is intelligible.

      I was not taught Hertz's equations either. I was made aware of them recently by Tom Phipps, who participated in an FQXi essay contest at age 90 (as Eckard notes below).

      Yes, equations (3) are more simply expressed via vector cross products but I am attempting to preserve Hertz's actual equations in their original 1890 form, as they also appear in Einstein's 1905 paper in that same form. However I have re-written equations (5) in modern form (with the original form shown in the Endnotes.)

      I've read your paper and will respond on your page.

      I do not view universal time as having two components. As you know, I very much appreciate quaternions but prefer geometric algebra. When moving beyond 4D I tend to believe one should jump to 8D Octonions, as I will discuss on your page. In short, since quaternions describe electromagnetism and also gravitomagnetism individually, I suspect that Octonions might nicely describe both electromagnetism and gravitomagnetism together. I'm not sure whether anyone has looked into this representation or not.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Eckard Blumschein,

      Thanks for reading my essay and commenting.

      As you note, Phipps participated in FQXi at age 90. Although I communicated with him I had not yet read his book, which made me aware of Hertz's version of Maxwell's equations and their Galilean invariance. Phipps interpretation was clever but confused (in my opinion) by his understanding of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless he inspired me to read Hertz's work and to re-read Einstein's paper. These supported my understanding of time as expressed in the essay, and my understanding of gravity as expressed in previous essays. The timing was perfect; I discovered Phipps after writing the paper An energy-based derivation of Lorentz transformation in one inertial frame which differs from all special relativity derivations based on two inertial frames.

      Sorry the out of sequence references confused you. Reference 4 was initially in line, but space considerations forced me to move it to the Endnotes (bottom of page 11).

      I very much look forward to your essay,

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Ed, I have enjoyed the conversation. Would you please tell me what program you used for the diagrams. Thank you, Chris N.

        Dear Dr. Klingman,

        Your essay is configured as a dialog between Hertz, Einstein, and the Tavern Keeper. So are you the Tavern Keeper? The final line talks about "the fundamental nature of time as universal simultaneity". But the problem with questioning relativity is that it is embedded in modern technology. GPS would not work without relativity, including corrections due to both general and special relativity.

        My view is that relativity is essentially correct, but that space and time are not abstract at all, but rather are embedded in microscopic quantum waves. In my essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", I propose that a set of slight modifications from classical physics can give rise to a consistent unified realistic physical picture on all scales. There are no point particles or gravitational singularities; abstract spacetime and Hilbert space are mathematical artifacts. Electrons are distributed wave packets. Space and time are separate, and are defined by frequency and wavelength of these real waves, which can shift in a gravitational potential.

        This agrees with orthodox GR for small gravitational potentials, which is really all that has been measured. Extrapolation to strong gravitational potentials is completely unknown, but there is no reason to accept the presence of any mathematical divergences such as black holes or event horizons. There are certainly collapsed gravitational objects in the center of galaxies, but we actually know very little about their nature.

        Alan Kadin

          Dr. Klingman,

          Great essay. Admittedly some of it was above my head but I trust your physics. If I understand, you conclude that time is counted in cycles and is everywhere the same. Is it possible that nature uses time in at least three different ways? Time simply repeats for particles which means their masses are stable and uniform. You discussed what I call cosmological time, time that repeats and counts forward. But time shift we call gamma is used to allow kinetic energy (ke=m/gamma-m) and associated velocity. Time appears to be nature's primary construction tool and deserves to be called fundamental. Your discussion between ghosts in a tavern shows a supple, creative mind. Congratulations on a fine essay and thank you again for your encouragement.

            Dear Chris,

            I'm very glad you enjoyed the conversation. I use Wolfram's Mathematica for calculations and graphics.

            Best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Alan,

            Thanks for reading and commenting. I began the year believing SR was simple (the Lorentz transformation, what else?) and that GR was complex. A year of discussion with other physicists has convinced me otherwise. Competent physicists understand so many aspects of special relativity that when they come across one statement that seems to contradict other aspects, they dismiss the statement and stop considering the issue. The point of the essay is that Einstein space-time symmetry is a faulty interpretation of the Lorentz transformation which can correctly be reinterpreted in terms of energy-time conjugation. The Lorentz transformation (which I believe is what you are defending) does apply to relativistic particle physics, to the muon, and to GPS, but it is an energy-time effect, not a space-time effect.

            A key aspect of this is derivation of the Lorentz transformation. Einstein, and all relativity textbooks assume two time dimensions (inertial frames) to derive LT. In An Energy-Based Derivation of Lorentz Transformation in One Inertial Frame I derive the LT in one inertial frame. I hope you will read this. As you are one of the better physicists who frequent FQXi, I hope you will take the problem seriously.

            You say the problem is "GPS will not work without relativity, including corrections due to both general and special relativity." On page 8 I note that muons, GPS, atomic clocks, and Pound-Rebka are all compatible with an energy-time re-interpretation of space-time physics. Your statement actually means that the Lorentz transformation is necessary for twentieth century physics, but many will read it to mean that the "space-time symmetry" interpretation is necessary. It is not. I hope you will reread at least pages 8 and 9, which focus on the nature of clocks. Clocks measure the energy of oscillating systems, which only indirectly translates into time. Einstein's gedanken experiments are based on "perfect clocks" at every point in every inertial frame, ignoring the energy dependence of clocks. That is a fallacious concept. I have one detailed analysis posted [link above] and four more in process to show this in extreme detail.

            Of course, questioning relativity is almost a cottage industry, and most physicists categorize every such attempt as futile, but I hope you will attempt to understand my essay rather than dismiss it because you believe it rejects relativistic math -- it does not. It keeps the math while reinterpreting the erroneous physics concept of multiple time dimensions. It is subtle, but it retains the Lorentz transform while rejecting the source of paradox and confusion, Einstein's space-time symmetry concept based on multiple time dimensions.

            Having spent a year discussing this with quite competent physicists, I know that the tendency is to focus on any particular statement, and tell oneself "that is incompatible with other things I know" and mentally stop at that point. That's when the complexity of SR raises its ugly head. Please believe me that every physicist who has explored this across all SR aspects now agrees with me. I hope you will reread my essay with an open mind, reserving judgment until you have considered all points.

            In fact, your second paragraph is almost word for word compatible with my interpretation of clocks and with page 6 in my essay. You say

            "Space and time are separate, and are defined by frequency and wavelength of these real waves, which can shift in a gravitational potential"

            Alan, they shift because of the GR energy difference, and also shift because of the mv**2 SR energy difference. This is the key to understanding my essay.

            In short, you are assuming that I reject the special relativistic math. That is not true. I retain the Lorentz math of the SR while I re-interpret the physics of space-time symmetry in favor of the physics of energy-time conjugation.

            I will of course comment on your essay on your page.

            My very best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Gene Barbee,

            Thanks for your kind thoughts. You understand me to say that "time is counted in cycles and is everywhere the same." You are correct and have boiled the argument down to the essentials. All clocks count cycles (examples in essay). The cycle is inverse frequency and, since Einstein, we know that energy is related to frequency and frequency to inverse time. Hence

            cycles ~ inverse frequency ~ inverse (inverse time) ~ time.

            So clocks measure energy which is indirectly related to time. That is, clocks do not directly measure time. Einstein's 'perfect clocks' were assumed to measure time perfectly, and his (faulty) concept of multiple time frames and (faulty) concepts of perfect clocks were logically extended into areas (such as railway cars) where experiments to prove or disprove his logic were impossible, hence "gedanken" experiments, deriving results based on the valid logic of faulty principles. This is why Einstein states in his 1905 paper that his theory is derived "with the help of certain imaginary experiments."

            Thanks again for reading and commenting so astutely.

            Best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear all,

            Let me appreciate Klingman's carefully chosen wording. When proponents of SR are using the word gedanken, they usually understand it as "Gedankenexperiment" while a Gedanken is simply athought.

            I personally dislike this habit and similar ones:

            It is almost mandatory to write Galileo or even galileo if Galileo Galilei is meant, just because his father was not entirely unknown.

            Michelson designed, performed, and published a first important experiment with the so called null result in Potsdam 1881 and a merely technically improved version of it in Cleveland 1887, the latter one in cooperation with Morley. Already the first one challenged the experts. Hence, I feel the abbreviation MMX a bit inappropriate.

            Incidentally, as a German, I am not quite sure how to translate astute.

            Ed,

            Here is something for you to ponder. The relativistic energy equation can be decomposed into the following quaternion conjugate pair:

            Q = m_0*c^2 pc

            Q^ = m_0*c^2 - pc

            where m_0 and c are scalars and p is a vector

            This then leads to a quaternion conjugate pair for momentum:

            P = m_0*c p

            P* = m_0*c - p

            This then leads to a quaternion conjugate pair for velocity:

            V = c v

            V* = c - v

            where v is a vector.

            It is hard for me to believe that this is a coincidence.

            Best Regards and Good Luck,

            Gary Simpson

            Edwin

            This was an interesting and thoughtful essay. Yes, Einstein was wrong by not allowing clocks to be wrong. Although all theories must be true internally they must nevertheless be treated as approximations in relation to reality, since we must test them and tests produce always errors. There may for instance be hidden variables.

            Since stellar aberration and MMX are useless in relation to the ether wind we must use measurements of 1-way speed of light as we have done for decades in the GPS system, and also in Sagnac's test. To explain gravity the ether must be falling. We cannot do that the bending of nothing.

            Stokes assumed mirrors in MMX to define the vector sum ether wind and wave velocity. In reality mirrors have relevance only for moving oscillations in light, but not for the static assymetry in ether that we call ether wind. So, Stokes' invention (effect in transverse arm) is in error. Lorentz did not DISCOVER this, but instead INVENTED time dilation, and Einstein bought the idea.

            Einstein INVENTED an explanation by starting with the same speed in relation to ALL inertial observers.

            The first error by Stokes resulted in lots of errors and more errors to explain the earlier errors. The confusion was started by Stokes.

            Regards from _________________ John-Erik

              Klingman,

              "'Clocks' are always implemented as 'cycle counters' so clocks actually measure energy, not time."

              - I would submit that a clock indicates the local rate of evolution of spontaneous processes all happening according to the local rate of time evolution....

              Good stuff! You deal with the history

              Marcel,

                Having now read your essay, I posted the following on your page:

                Dear Eckard Blumshein,

                A tour de force! Congratulations on an incredibly information-dense essay.

                I appreciate your beginning with Fourier transforms, without which quantum mechanics surely would not exist. You have for several essays focused on cosine transforms providing insight based on your audio work. Your issues concerning t = 0 are subtle. I do agree that physicists tend to stay away from the foundations of mathematics, some actually considering mathematical structure more fundamental than physics.

                You note a truly fundamental assumption besides causality: "There is only one reality." My essay treats the fundamental nature of time essential to reality, which is universal simultaneity.

                You observe that rigorous formalizations are notorious for causing paradoxes. I observe that all special relativity (SR) texts base the derivation of the Lorentz transformation on two inertial frames, seeming to impute that the very existence of the Lorentz transformation implies the existence of two (or more) time dimensions, per Einstein. In An Energy-Based Derivation of Lorentz Transformation in One Inertial Frame I prove that two inertial frames are not required for the existence of the LT. I believe this is both mathematically and physically significant. In the first place it gets rid of the paradoxes associated with Einstein's 'space-time symmetry'-based "gedanken" experiments [based on railway examples not subject to measurement] while retaining the relativistic [energy] particle physics so well-supported by twentieth century physics.

                In a yet-to-be-published a paper I examine Einstein's faulty 'simultaneity detector' based on which he declares "the relativity of simultaneity". Deriving the Lorentz transform in one real world (one inertial frame) argues against multiple time dimensions (and all of the non-intuitive nonsense that depends from this) and leads to the classical understanding of time as universal simultaneity. His denial of this caused Einstein to admit "the now worries him seriously." Universal simultaneity is, of course, now.

                CS Peirce, as you note, insisted that "axioms are not a priori truths, but synthetic statements." Einstein's two axioms are contradicted by a one-frame derivation of the Lorentz transformation and by local gravity as ether. Again you state (p5) that "unjustified rigor is to blame for [much] nonsense." Einstein's rigorous derivation of LT in two inertial frames is the basis of much nonsense that vanishes when LT is derived in one inertial frame.

                I also like your treatment of symmetry. You say "in reality, symmetries tend to be rarely perfect." Amen. The SU(3) basis of the Standard Model is valid only if masses are equal. In reality the relevant masses differ by two orders of magnitude! Approximate symmetry is all that one finds in the real world.

                I also like:

                "Should we try and alternatively deal with some fundamentals of physics from the perspective of elapsed time-span...". I would apply this to the elapsed time of the cycle of vibration characterizing the energy of the 'clock' mechanism, and the realization that clocks actually measure energy, and only indirectly are measure 'time'. This demolishes Einstein's clock-based derivation of SR, while fully retaining the energy-time basis of relativistic particle physics. Most particle physics occurs in collisions, which obviously occur at one point in time, not in two time dimensions, as per the theology of SR.

                You then note that

                "Time t and circular frequency w constitute a pair of conjugate quantities."

                That is, time and energy! And note that circular frequency is the basis of all clocks!

                In conclusion, you say

                "Let's likewise check the historic line of reasoning behind what led to Einstein's special theory of relativity for possibly not justified analogies and generalizations."

                That, of course, is exactly what my essay does. I believe our conclusions are almost identical.

                Congratulations on a truly magnificent essay.

                Edwin Eugene Klingman

                Dear John-Erik Persson,

                I posted the following on your page:

                I enjoyed your essay and agree that theoretical physics today depends on more than 100-year-old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, some of which are in error. Like you, I feel that perhaps the easiest way to advance physics is to reveal old fundamental errors.

                You discuss too many physical phenomena for me to critique, so I will focus on those aspects on which I believe we agree. For example, you state that

                "Instead of by time dilation, observed effects must be explained by clock behavior."

                Any analysis of atomic clocks must be based on clocks counting cycles, which are inversely related to time, while (per Einstein) frequency is directly related to energy. Thus clocks measure energy directly and time only indirectly. Einstein's idea of 'perfect clocks', located at every point in the moving frame and perfectly synchronized, is an erroneous idea. Formulated long before the development of atomic clocks (the only ones that show relativistic effects) Einstein might be forgiven his mistake, but why hold onto it?

                You note that the "Lorentz transform is based on the absurd assumption that light moves with the same speed in relation to all observers moving with constant, but different speeds." Of course Rindler, whose name is associated with several aspects of special relativity, agrees with this, and I discuss this in detail in my essay.

                Like you, I feel that Faraday's pedestal could be raised much higher.

                You also note that experiments that detect the ether wind based on rotation of the planet surely cannot be interpreted to "assume our own planet to entrain the ether in the whole universe." I propose that light propagates in local gravity, and that this is compatible both with MM's null result and with the motion of clocks circling earth in opposite directions. I suspect that when you say that

                "Such an ether wind can explain gravity as well",

                you are in agreement with the fact that

                "Local gravity can explain ether"

                as detailed in my essay.

                You note the absurdity of the twins paradox, which is a logical consequence of 'space-time symmetry' that vanishes in an 'energy-time conjugate' formalism (while retaining relativistic particle physics quite well) and note (as I do) that an older, wiser Einstein said "physics without ether is unthinkable."

                You develop the idea of "falling ether", then state that "this falling ether describes gravity". I would respectfully suggest that the concept of "gravity as local ether" satisfies the goals you have in mind, but perhaps I need to study your essay more closely.

                In any event, we are almost identical in our analysis of the problem, and I think in general agreement in our solutions.

                I hope you enjoy my essay as much as I have enjoyed yours.

                My very best regards,

                Edwin Eugene Klingman

                Dear Jack James, [ I have left this comment on your page.]

                You argue that rationalism (pure reasoning without experiential input) must have a vital role when it comes to revealing fundamentals. It is hard to find 'pure' cases (without experiential input) but I examine a case wherein a null result led to a theory based on pure reasoning, with the result that unreasonable assumptions (multiple time dimensions) took hold and have endured for a century.

                Your point C discusses "our rational theories matching our evolved cognitive perceptions of reality". In the case of special relativity, our evolved cognitive perception of reality was that of universal time as universal simultaneity. Einstein's assumptions, upon which he rationally based his theory, led to conclusions that contradicted our evolved cognitive perception of reality. It's a real ball of wax.

                Interestingly, an alternative rationale leads to the same mathematical result (the Lorentz transformation) by an entirely different path while yielding a theory that does match our evolved cognitive perceptions of reality. The difference is based on careful analysis of "perfect clocks".

                The empirical confirmation offered by relativistic particle physics confirms the applicability of the Lorentz transformation without contradicting either the space-time symmetry of SR or the energy-time asymmetry of the 'real world' (one time dimension)-based theory.

                I'm uncertain what the relevance of this is to your analytical approach, but it seems to provide a 'test case' for you to apply your approach to.

                Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. My sense is that your approach is a reasonable take on a difficult problem.

                Best regards,

                Edwin Eugene Klingman