Eckard,

Quite simple; Put that way the statement "I recall" applied to both your past interpretations and Davids essay.

Why 'pretend agreeing'? I DID agree with all I referred to, as identified. But for clarity I then also noted the differences in our ideas which I'd analysed and discussed in detail as I'm sure you'll recall. I also found much agreement with Davids ideas. If I disagreed I'd certainly say so and why.

I meant to complete the point on antenna and Maxwell's near far field TZ. It's easier in air etc as antenna engineers know it's ~1 micron for short waves and most of Earths atmosphere in the red. That's also Lorentz's transform as it deals with different states of background motion!!

But lets see if we can do it for ground radar. If you approached a body rapidly and emitted radar at the same time as a friend emitted it at rest on the surface,

1) would the signals propagate in the ground at the same v? Yes?

2) Would yours be 'blue shifted'? Yes?

3) Would yours then have an 'additional' speed change over his due to your v.

Think carefully. Presently SR takes NO account of the 'kinetic' speed change of EM signals which is additional to that due to medium index 'n'. In water, air and space it takes ever longer as the medium particles are ever more diffuse.

Is that not a physical change of speed to local c (or c/n) due to absorption and re-emission at the TZ?

Best

Peter

    My essay doesn't deal with c/n, your re-emission theory, and your "kinetic" speed changes of EM signals. Also, it doesn't treat the speed c of light in vacuum just a local quantity.

    Did you read my essay at all?

    Eckard,

    The important questions are for your thought and considered responses, if you wish, not because I mistakenly thought you'd already considered & answered them in the essay, which, as you confirm, you hadn't.

    If you don't wish to you only need to say so rather than suggest I hadn't read your essay!

    Peter

    Hi Eckard Blumschein

    You are really a wonderful mathematician! Your words...CT and FT are equivalent to each other except for an arbitrarily added to the latter point of reference, and subjectively chosen references are definitely less fundamental than non-arbitrary ones. Semi-fundamental constructs dear Eckard Blumschein. I got small question for you.... Can FT or CT work for multivariable business forcasting?

    ...... very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

    I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

    Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

    -No Isotropy

    -No Homogeneity

    -No Space-time continuum

    -Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

    -No singularities

    -No collisions between bodies

    -No blackholes

    -No warm holes

    -No Bigbang

    -No repulsion between distant Galaxies

    -Non-empty Universe

    -No imaginary or negative time axis

    -No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

    -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

    -No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

    -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

    -No many mini Bigbangs

    -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

    -No Dark energy

    -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

    -No Multi-verses

    Here:

    -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

    -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

    -All bodies dynamically moving

    -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

    -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

    -Single Universe no baby universes

    -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

    -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

    -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

    -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

    -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

    -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

    -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

    -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

    - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

    I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

    Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

    In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

    I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

    Best

    =snp

      I don't know why my reply disappeared. This is a copy:

      - "Can FT or CT work for multivariable business forcasting?"

      FT with analytic continuation as well as CT are methods to perform a spectral analysis of already measured data, not immediately a forecast. What do you mean by multivariable business?

      While I didn't deal with models of the universe and I don't intend doing so, I will have a brief look at your model of our universe as soon as possible.

      So far, I am happy that you found out and pointed to a rather amazing fundamental argument from my 9th essay. My most fundamental assumption is causality. -

      Let me add:

      As a rule, reality is more fundamental than theory. The territory is more fundamental than its map. As a rule means, there are a few fabricated apparent exceptions.

      Already the abstract of my essay must not be ignored:

      "APPLICATION of complex Fourier transform (FT) on functions of time f(t) was in the 20th century and is perhaps still considered as a if not the most fundamental mathematical method of physics and technology. Actually, FT is a tool that doesn't immediately fit to measured data of real processes."

      Eckard Blumschein

      Peter,

      My essay deals with redundancies. You demonstrated to me that abundant redundancy may sometimes be very helpful. When you wrote "Best to Edwin which programme he used", I again felt forced to guess what you meant. Meanwhile I prefer the following interpretation: "It might be best to ask Edwin which programme he used."

      The reason why I didn't understand your use of the word past as previous was my wrong guess that it referred to something that didn't relate to my current essay.

      Zeilinger's observation that light "has no memory of it's previous states" after interaction with a polarizer sounds reasonable to me. I too imagine in this case the possibility of a re-emission with randomized alternatives of parameters like spin or direction. However, I have to admit that this is just a layman's guess of mine which has nothing to do with my essay.

      Best,

      Eckard

      I should have anticipated that there are people like Gupta who don't read my essay carefully enough as to understand and accept my hopefully compelling reasoning.

      Of course, the matter is truly fundamental.

      I got so far three times rated by the public: 7+4+2.

      May I hope for factual critics too?

      Eckard Blumschein

        Dear snp,

        While I still suspect you didn't read my essay carefully, I have to admit, I for my part am inclined to agree on an emotional "layman" basis with almost all of the many opinions you listed.

        Let me just discuss this one:

        "-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe".

        Hmm. Of course, the word universe means there is only one reality. In this sense, I too see it as closed as also is the so called absolute Archimedean infinity in contrast to Bernoulli/Leibniz/Cantor's relative infinities.

        Nonetheless, Sommerfeld's radiation condition is certainly not wrong:

        Radiation is never reflected from infinity.

        I still didn't manage reading your essay and related stuff.

        Best,

        Eckard

        Dear Eckard

        Thank you for the reply...

        I was talking about SVM the Support Vector Machines in Regression Analysis for multivariable business forecasting. FT is a powerful tool I suppose it can be used....

        Your analysis is correct, fundamental is causality.

        Best Regards

        =snp

        Dear Eckard,

        I dont rate people low, give 10 or 9 or just refrain from rating that essay as a rule...

        Best Regards

        =snp

        Dear snp,

        Decades ago, a professor Schwarz from South Africa made me aware of the nonsensicality of integrating over time from minus infinity to plus infinity in case of lacking support (in mathematical language). Analytic continuation is formally correct but it can also be understood as a sort of self deception.

        This doesn't mean that FT and one-sided Laplace transformation are not excellent tools in case of prediction. I merely don't accept as a pillar of reality the seemingly mandatory tenet of block time which denies the strict distinction between past and future. Well, the far past is about as unknown as is the far future. However, I agree with Popper and Shannon, see my essay "Shannon's view on Wheeler's belief": The past is closed (finished) but the future is open.

        In other words, no matter how successful a model might be, I consider the agreement between prediction and reality always uncertain to some extent.

        One cannot predict the past. A frequency analysis of the future is only possible if one denies possible deviations of reality from model. Only the nonsensical denial of reality including the denial of the now by Einstein fits to performing a frequency analysis of the past simultaneously with a prediction of the future.

        I see reality a conjecture rather than a model.

        Perhaps one of the first ones who sucessfully predicted and benefited from the ups and downs of a stock market was Gauss. Perhaps the first one who predicted a thunderstorm on scientific basis was Guericke. Such predictions are still uncertain.

        By the way, I hope you will convince those in the public who felt entitled to downrate my essay: They too should read my essay more carefully.

        Best regards,

        Eckard

        Dear Eckard,

        Thank you for Nice logic

        Closed universe... logical analysis is one thing, Mathematically calculating on Dynamic Universe Model Sita is another.... Thats what I did.....

        35 years of working on Dynamic Universe Model without any support really hurts me. Now I came to fag end of life, why should I lower any person? I believe in God and Karma.... I did not yet gave any ranking yet to your essay. Please give me mail to snp.gupta@gmail.com, I will intimate you when I do that...

        I dont rate people low, give 10 or 9 or just refrain from rating that essay as a rule...

        Believe me somebody else did it...

        Best Regards

        Dear Eckard,

        Thank you for Nice logic

        Closed universe... logical analysis is one thing, Mathematically calculating on Dynamic Universe Model Sita is another.... Thats what I did.....

        35 years of working on Dynamic Universe Model without any support really hurts me. Now I came to fag end of life, why should I lower any person? I believe in God and Karma.... I did not yet gave any ranking yet to your essay. Please give me mail to snp.gupta@gmail.com, I will intimate you when I do that...

        I dont rate people low, give 10 or 9 or just refrain from rating that essay as a rule...

        Believe me somebody else did it...

        Best Regards

        =snp

        Peter,

        I am not a knowing-all. Admittedly I don't completely agree with Ritz although I feel in debt to R. Fritzius who prefers an emission theory as do you. Incidentally, somewhere I read that Newton adopted the emission theory from someone else. He imagined light like particles that possess the property of mass.

        The competing wave theory was then based on the assumption of mass and elasicity of a carrying medium, and Hertz actually discovered electromagnetic waves.

        Michelson did show that the hypothetic medium cannot have a stationary reference point as has air, the analogon. Are there non-paradoxical alternatives?

        Phipps and now Klingman prefer Lorentzian relativity for some reasons. While Einstein's SR has been widely accepted because it fits well to the behavior of particles in accelerators, in particular the two-way synchronization and the belonging non-simultaneity are hard to swallow.

        In my essay I didn't exclude the idea that far field em waves don't CARRY energy and momentum but the combinations of elastic electric with inert magnetic field components rather ARE propagating energy and momentum.

        Kadin explains away the enigmatic duality between extended in 3D waves and compact single photons.

        In all, I have to stress: I am just an old teacher of EE.

        Eckard

        Dear Fellow Essayists

        This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

        FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

        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

          Dear snp Gupta,

          I did never suspect you to have downrated my essay. Since you are an author, your rating belongs to the community, not to the public. I respect your decision not to give me 10 or 9, why not an 8?. I too feel poorly understood. My address is eckard.blumschein@arcor.de

          Best regards,

          Eckard

          6 days later

          Joe Fisher,

          You might not have found out how the claim, which you are repeatedly offering to many authors of serious essays, actually relates to my essay to some extent.

          Nobody denies that every somehow tangible object in 3D has, in principle, a more or less limited extension of its volume and has in this sense a surface.

          However, the notion universe doesn't denote such an object if it is conceived as infinite.

          A-infinity is an absolute ideal. B-infinities are pragmatic fundamentals of set theoretic foundations of mathematics. Logically they exclude each other.

          Eckard Blumschein

          Eckard:

          This is a response to your post in my essay.

          What is the question? Who is your boss.

          If the question is which of the two philosophers is closer to me, I suggest Heraclitos.

          Superluminal mechanism is what allows the quantum weirdness to be understood by classical analogy. It is much simpler than all the quantum baggage. Further, it suggest all observations are non-local in the sense if Bell's inequality. See how simple the quantum world can be?

            addendum:

            This is a short video showing the model and the actual experiment.

            Note the superluminal speed is required for the single photon in the experiment at a time.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k

            Dear John,

            In my Author Bio I wrote: "His last boss had refused to comment on his IEEE paper [4] because he considered the matter as too ("so was von") fundamental."

            You asked: "Who is your boss?" I don't think you have to contact him. He is a prolific expert in ground penetrating radar. This technology helps to avoid that innocent civilian get victims of landmines. He was born in Egypt and is therefore a Muslim to whom Allah is the most fundamental of all.

            Why was he worried to such an extent? At first, my common sense reasoning did certainly coincide with his own tacit uncertainties. For instance, he learned and teaches to always perform the frequency analysis as a Fourier transformation with integration from minus infinity to plus infinity although future data can definitely not be measured in advance. Electrical engineers including him and me are also using non-causal models without being aware of a logical justification.

            When I dealt with hearing vs. spectrograms, I was worried with black boxes with output before any input.

            Secondly, he felt obliged to not question the mandatory tenets, while on the other hand he was unable to prove my arguments wrong. The situation was similar with respect to some naive Berkely-like questions of mine which professors of mathematics at my university were also not in position to answer. (Berkeley had asked: "They are neither finite quantities, nor quantities infinitely small,not yet nothing. May we not call them the ghosts of departed quantities?")

            My current essay tries to provide a plausible answer in this case too.

            There is much more to say. Having looked twice at your video, I am not yet sure; Is van Flandern's superluminal propagation of gravitation really a key to entanglement or may we hope for a less hypothetic construct?

            Anyway, I appreciate your preference for the openess of any development.

            Maybe, you are interested in experiments by de Guericke who about 350 years ago intended to demonstrate not just empty space and the electric attraction / repulsion but also an analog model of the balanced forces in the solar systen.

            Regards,

            Eckard