• [deleted]

  • Post #22

It's been keeping me awake for a while, the essay and the article, but I've just got it, and so simple. Genius! I now also see the problem you have. Unfortunately my main area isn't math and I'm not eminent enough to help much, but;

Did you know there are something over twelve superluminal phenomina out there, with as little good explanation as the lensing anomolies? your eureka moment should solve a lot more issues than you may think.

I've given you the top mark,which is less than you deserve, unfortunately I'm not part of the 'community'. I can't believe so few have seen it, but of course that's exactly what your essay predicts! I wish you all the luck in the world, and I'm watching with interest. I'm also watching the sky with a lot better understanding. Thank you. Can I cite your article yet please? I quite understand if you feel the time isn't yet right.

Aaron P

Hi Arjen, and Aaron

Yes of course you can refer to or cite my essay, and linked article, if with respect and moderation.

AP; "Did you know there are something over twelve superluminal phenomina out there, with as little good explanation as the lensing anomolies?"

Thanks Aaron, yes, and that we've been very 'head in the sand' about them so far. I'm also about to update the paper itself with some more surprising V2 data about the heliopause, fulfilling another prediction of the model.

Thanks for your support. Sorry I kept you awake, but aren't those eureka moments worth waiting for!

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #24

Hi Peter Jackson,

I used your full name because both Peter nor Jackson alone are not unique enough as to avoid confusion, and PJ is not yet as understandable as AE.

To me the title "Perfect Symmetry" was very confusing. As I wrote in my essay, my "attitude is at odds with prominent doctrines including conjectured general symmetry [Wigner, Nobel lecture]". You might be surprised: To me perfect symmetry almost in any case indicates an artifact that is based on improper use of transform into complex domain in combination with the belief in a spacetime that exists in advance from minus infinity to plus infinity.

You seem to claim much more than do I. I cannot even comment on your suggestions to explain a lot of problems. In particular, I do not yet understand what reference point your phase shift refers to. Since you seem to have valuable experience outside the field of physical speculations, you will hopefully be in position to give a detailed and relevant example of what can be derived from your work. I would even more appreciate if you were so kind elucidating why the attached measurement by Gompf might be wrong.

Regards,

EckardAttachment #1: 1_M291.html

  • [deleted]

  • Post #25

Dear Peter,

i admire your essay for the frankness of approach to the subject. We all know that Universe does have a logical design of its evolution since birth with Big Bang. Although we lack precise cosmological measurements, specially for the early universe, we find that the physics evolved till now meets only our present day universe understanding. However, it leaves many unsolved mysteries too that came about because of lack of knowledge about the early universe. Instead of spending huge sums to build higher & higher energy accelerators, we can never hope to duplicate the conditions prevailing at and near the birth of the Universe, when the total mass and energy of the universe got created.

It is therefore necessary that what we consider holy in the present day Physics, may not really be so valid in the early period of the universe. To illustrate, i have conjectured inconstancy of the physical constants and changing strengths of the four force fields over the period of 14 billion years life of the universe. Only then we may be able to reconcile the Physics valid for the entire period of the history of the Universe. Moreover, the search need not be confined to what are the constituents of dark matter, non-baryonic in nature, vis-a-vis visible baryonic matter. One should go to the source matter created at birth- primordial matter. that has given rise to both the dark and visible matter. early unkverse cosmological experiments conducted with precision & accuracy from out in space are likely to solve such mysteries in the years to come. In my essay on this forum, i have provided some perspectives that may or may not be true eventually. Thus, i fully agree with author when he indicates the need for an open, unbiased and wide mind.Only then we can hope to get freshness in approach required to unravel the unsolved questions in Physics today.

Hi Peter,

Are you quoting Stokes with 'how can we know how we might have thought had we learned differently?' Or do you refer to the quote on Stokes wikiquote page? (just have a look at who updated that page, clicking on the 'history' tab).

I've not yet made my mind up for the definitive rating. I didn't manage yet to get through the links you referred to.

Hi Eckard.

Phase shift was a misleading term, sorry, to keep it symmetrical just think of simply Doppler frequancy shift. The symmetry is; As mass moves it builds up a 'photoelectron' cloud of thickness and density proportional to velocity (wrt the surrounding local field). Symmetrical with (or actually "equivalent to") this is the degree of doppler shift required, also increasing with relative velocity. The third and perfect symmetry with this is that the oscillation rate of the photoectrons also increases in the same way, just like modulation for FM radio (done by single crystal oscillators).

By 'mass' I'm talking everything, from a single Proton, through humans, spacecraft, planets, solar systems etc to galactic clusters, (see Cl 0024+17).

It's termed the Discrete Field Model, it's completely falsifiable, and all I claim is that I haven't been able to yet. It follows the SR postulates but not the wrong assumption about there being no 3rd frame (field). AE said there are many fields in relative motion ('52). If only someone was listening!

Probably too late now as Popper also wasn't listened to and ruling paradigms along with the arXiv lock and 'Nature' are prematurely sealing our fate!

Couldn't open the Gompf link, but I can explain why it's flawed. Imagine a large cluster moving right to left across Hubbles lens, a local group moving the same way within it, M87 moving the same way within that, then the jet doing another 0.98c. That's exactly what we keep seeing, not just that one, there were dozens by the 1960's. But they seemed to breach postulate 2. They don't. Light will do 'c' through all local fields. The evidence is now a bit overwhelming and updated every day. It solves lots of astronomical anomolies, (working on them now). May post again soon on viXra, or perhaps the 'Skeptic Adversaria'.

Example? Too much choice!; Check out how fast the solar polarity shift wave passed Voyager 1 before (13 days) and after the termination shock (100+).

Thanks for your interest. Are you No4 to see this or still a bit confused? (don't think about the implications too much without warming up your brain!!)

Hi Narendra

Thanks for your support. I liked your essay and different perspectives. I couldn't possibly have had my own eureka moment if I'd have gone the same physics & maths education route as everyone else. The problem is; that puts me out on a limb, possibly like you, and having to decide - can we really be bothered to keep on summoning up the courage to run the gauntlet of crooked pointing fingers and croakey voices of pagan warlocks shouting "crackpot"? Does the human race really deserve its privaleged frame? I try not to watch the news too much, and mix with inspiring people instead in case I feel it doesn't!

See my last post. It was even sketchier than the essay, any questions on DFM just ask.

Very best of luck

Peter

Hi Arjen

Exactly that, ..but I hate verbosity!

Hoped you'd got to read the Article, attached below. Also working with top guys in the field on some major Astronomy angles, but won't post a draft yet.

The essay isn't a scientific paper, but does many things; Tells a fable, Introduces in outline a genuine new way of thinking, Gives a direct true answer to the essay postulate, Exposes the complacency and poor attutude & methodology of many we rely on for mankinds progress, and even suggests some improvements! but what it really does behind that, to use the words of the few readers above who've noticed, is introduce the fruits of that new way of thinking. - so, perhaps actually showing us a new current limit.

Except that I may need a good quantum physicist to assist. (maybe who can also do a few sums to do the job more quickly).

Do read, and ask any questions. (It also informs QG)

And I'm rooting for you at the top of the list!

Ever visited the Channel ports, or Kent?

PeterAttachment #1: UnificationArticle20.10.09.doc

  • [deleted]

  • Post #30

Peter,

I have a response to your comment, "The job in hand is to identify the evidence from among all the worthless theory. This will never be done while physics is a 'closed shop' with most of humanity excluded and all new theory labelled 'crackpot'. Even the arXiv site effectively excludes 99.9% of humankind. The real problem is information overload. We have to develop better systems and ways of thinking to view, analyse and interpret it. But there really aren't that many crazy theories. The job of weeding out the majority with zero evidential basis would be easy. Objectively considering the rest a little more difficult."

I understand Mike Lazaridis is responsible for donating $150M of his own money to Perimeter. I don't claim to know his motive, but if it was his intent to maximize impact on the development of new physics, simply spending the money to support a few scholars (many of whom are well established and would continue their work anyway), is clearly not the way to go. Rather, he could have contributed to a community of scholars who review crackpot ideas, facilitate communication between like-minded theorists and moderate open discussion and debate, e.g., via an essay contest. An organization like that is far more likely to contribute to the next new paradigm in physics. Someone should tell Mike that he'll get more bang for his buck at FQXi!

I agree Mark, though when you say 'Mike Lazaridi's own money' on Perimeter, I suspect half may otherwise have gone in taxes! so it's good for physics, and we shouldn't knock it.

But you're right, it could be more effectively spent to meet his aims as it now seems to have just become another part of the problem (living on old legends with the 'establishment') and in no way a solution.

We know both GR and QM can't be right, I think Mike L has actually said there's a new big step just round the corner, but Perimeter scientists won't now find it, focussing on their own personal agendas like everyone else while it hides under their noses. (or actually in their unanswered Email IN boxes!!). And I was very sad to find that included Dr Smolin. I thought perhaps the new director may have been a 'new broom' but it seems not.

Even THIS site suffers a lot from that. - You may have noticed my essay is actually a test of how much people read and understand the work of OTHERS. Not that much it seems! My self testing postulate was THAT's what limits physics, and it's currenntly self proving!

Cest la vie!

PJ

  • [deleted]

  • Post #32

Peter,

Thank you for your very fast diagnosis. Even if you are sure that the Gonpf enigma has been resolved you might like to look at the paper of concern. Try

http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein/M291.html or

http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein/Eisenmanger.pdf

Regards,

Eckard

Thanks Eckard, checked it out, very interesting, but not sure what direct relevance it had. I couldn't see a conflict with the model. Can you identify what the relevant enigmatic 'measurement' was?

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #34

Dear Peter,

Call me a pedant. As also did Galilei, Gold, and Ren, I do not swallow indications of obvious contradictions in science. They have to be clarified.

I am upset that the public persistently refuses to take notice of the fact that Gold and Ren falsified a Nobel price awarded tenet.

Well, the result of Gompf et al. is not equally important but I got the impression that any correction is unwelcome. Why?

As I already mentioned, the result "measured" by means of Single Photon Counting essentially deviate from direct measurement by a streak camera:

- They gave a too large width.

- They show a bell-shaped function of time different from what was to be expected according to theory as well as direct measurement

- Both deviations together can be explained as effect of a superimposed random artifact.

- The SPC-measurement did not show significantly different results with filters for different colors. This is also only understandable as effect of the suspected artifact.

As I told here, Prof. Eisenmenger himself admitted that the SPC results are at least questionable, possibly wrong.

I would otherwise not have any reason to put the SPC into question. However, the refusal of any objection by PRL reminds me of the regime that ruled my country until 1989. Likewise, Al Schwartz is ignored when he insists: Somebody should look. Why?

Regards,

Eckard

Hi Eckard

I'm not convinced that SPC is a valid or accurate methodology here, for various reasons; The technology is unproven. Right back from Neville Mott we've known particles are propagated and re-absorbed back into the field so there's no guarantee those emitted will not be the same as those counted.(it's the same resolution as the Muon paradox). Particles can't be conserved if we're to achive unification so we'd better get used to the concept or we'll never get unified! (no-one has ever witnessed a long range photon or muon, and the Japanese recently witnessed particles having 'changed' when checked at range. And lastly, there's no corroboration or inductive proof.

An interesting result none the less, but I can't take it too seriously, and predict it will end up being used to prove something entirely different.

Very different to my DFM, which has full inductive proof, but, following the postulate of my essay, hardly anyone has even properly looked at yet!! have you?

That's life Eckard. So the only question now is, how much longer for?

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #36

Proff Jackson

I'd saved your link and have just managed to read it. Why is it hidden on here and viXra? Are you just trying to make a point about our shortcomings or are you really having trouble geting it reviewed? Have you spoken with any other Astronomers yet about how it resolves the lensing anomolies? Or Cern about dark matter implications? Why on earth is your community rating where it is? Are other authors 'community'. I think I see what you're saying now. Do let me know, But best of luck.

Julian

  • [deleted]

  • Post #37

Hi Peter

I am very interested in your triple helix morphology. I do understand how it has also worked very well and have seen the eureka moment some of your posts have mentioned. I know the Einstein quotes but did not know Feynman said the same. When was this?

I wish you very best luck with your perfect model, which I wish I had discovered myself.

How can I learn the different way of thought?

Yours Anders

Hi Anders

The Feynman quote was from one of his books, possibly the one titled something like the Joy of Discovering Things? - or if you were talking of the 'Nature will always find a simpler way' quote it was from one of his NZ lectures.

I'm afraid the Triple Helix Morphology might take a while to learn as it did take a few decades to develop! It took a whole new career and research path, including neurology. Part of it is having to learn to think naturally in 3D, checking things against an almost infinate criteria base, on progressively detailed levels, and projecting forward complex implication matrices of different combinations and sequences of decisions, all in a structured framework of intuition. Marrying art and science is also key. Maybe I should just have smoked a few spliffs!! I'll try to analyse it much better some time.

Congratulations on finding the power of the model Anders, it shows some mental capacity dexterity just to recognise it! I still beleive in the postulate of the essay, that you'll be in a tiny minority.

But watch this space!

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #39

Dear Peter,

Thank you for an encouraging hypothesis wrt Gompf.

I looked in vain for the abbreviation DFM in your essay as well as in youe paper Doppler Assisted Quantum Unification. Is my guess Doppler Frequency Modulation close?

I do still not yet understand what you meant with symmetry. Hopefully you do not refer to the putative mirror-symmetry f(t) = f(-t) or the like.

Regards,

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #40

i am revisting your essay and feel happy to go through it again in a 'short'manner. I am no expert in the field of Physics and Cosmology where i am dabbling presently. I for one agree totally with you about the need to EXPAND PARADIMGS in Physics or any other field. Total knowledge is contained already in our Universe. By dividing our activities into various ' specialisations' we have only harmed the growth towards the truth. We are spread out too thin and are losing our grip. Our mind is capable of expanding to the universal mind, if only we know how? Soetimes i wonder about the system of refernces/quotations. Are we just dummy duplicates. Philosophy is an open branch. i will even agree that one may hardly been doing any new research except to present the same in a differnt way what others have already done. What is unique an individual does what another individual has never done earlier, to me present a dilemma. Most of what i have done has been in one way or the other, depends on what others have done, said about or divulged to me in their personal talks to me. Originality at core is hard to find in the system that has been evolved.

Sometimes i feel the more we interact the more confused we become, it is better to listen to the silence within our minds in a quiet contemplation, without any disturbance from others! Bravo, young man as you are far younger to me!

Hi Eckard

.."I looked in vain for the abbreviation DFM in your essay as well as in youe paper Doppler Assisted Quantum Unification. Is my guess Doppler Frequency Modulation close?"

A brilliant guess Eckard! Actually wrong, but as good a title as the real one; 'Discrete Field Model'.

Unification has however proved to rest on the replacement of just a mathematical construct, the Doppler formulae, with an actual quantum process for doppler shifting EM waves. This shows us the locked door we hadn't noticed, and also gives us the key! You're now one of the first group to take a peek through it. (most still won't beleive there's a wall let alone a door!).

..".. I do still not yet understand what you meant with symmetry..".

Nothing so impotent as a putative mathermatical equation Eckard, the symmetry is inherant in the solution; The realative field velocity is proportional to the shock particle propagation density, is proportional to the Doppler shift required is proportional to the rate of oscillation. And the energy always stays constant, finally showing the true logic of the photoelectric effect.

Thanks and Congrats

Peter

P.S. How's this for a quote; "We'll never understand what we see while it's screened by what we seek"