Perfect Symmetry by Peter A Jackson

Hi Eckard

Thanks for your support. But I'm afraid I've failed so far with the 527 ,and I'm not a numbers man or mathematician - do I get any clues?

Peter

Hi Don

I'm glad you had that moment. It's a wonderful feeling isn't it. I liked your analogy with someone turning the lights on.

Don; "I wonder how long the commmunity will take to notice!"

I hadn't anticipated the posts here 'letting the cat out of the bag' so much, but it's an interesting part of the process. I'm in a very strange position, as I really want my main postulate, that science currently wouldn't be able to recognise what it's looking for, to be proved wrong.

I have a draft paper with some practical proof resolving two major astronomical anomolies under PRJ consideration at present. Putting it in as a non 'recognised' physicist I really don't expect... anyway, it's putting that system under the same test.

The 'thought experiment' is done, and part of the above paper. I did a complex double proof one with Concorde, a 747 and ratio's but a mathematician couldn't hold it in their minds so I condensed it for him. It shows the DFM uses the SR postulates but not a wrong 'assumtion' also made. I'll simplify the conditions here, but just ask if you have queries;

2 systems, in space, one a fibre optic cable, one just the emitter and receiver. Observer at rest on a 100m spacecraft. Pull both systems past at say 0.6c. Emitters fire similtaneous pulses. We 'know';

1. The pulse will move along the cable at a definate velocity wrt the cable. (EM cable signals don't change speed on spinning planets or aeroplanes). But to stop anyone observing it at more than 'c' the cable will contract.

2. A light sphere will grow at 'c' from the position of the naked emitter where/when it was propagated. ("..irrespective of the motion of.."etc.) The observer will measure it at 'c' from his, rest, frame, (but blue shifted).

The sphere wave front will take some time to catch up with the receiver as it can only go at 'c'. If we contracted that system we'd have to observe the wave front doing less than 'c', which breaches SR!! (contracting the space between emitter and receiver when the space isn't 'in motion' isn't anticipated anyway!).

3. The identical length (& speed) systems must be observed to pass the ends of the ship at the same time, so must contract the same. As we know the wave front is definately doing 'c' the observer therefore must 'see' the pulse in the cable doing c+v. (actually not quite, as EM FOptic signals only do say 0.7c, so he'd 'see' it at 1.3c.).

No matter how you contort dilation and contraction apparently no consistant maths yet invented can prove that wrong without introducing yet more 'changes' to the laws of nature!. And that really isn't a problem, as it doesn't break the postulates, just an 'assumption' (or actually "stipulation") when the quantum field was removed, and astronomers are observing such 'apparent superluminal motion' from our removed 3rd frame, all over the place.

As you've now seen the 'other' paradox this seemed to leave us with is now simply resolved. So you understand the question posed in the essay; can the human race progress much further when our minds are loosing the ability to take on new paradigms? or actually even the ability to look properly for them!

Did you get the experiment ok? (I should have put that one in the original web archive paper). Do spread the word if you dare!

Best wishes

Peter

Thanks for the excellent story George.

Yes I do appreciate and understand it. And I would say there is NO chance of that happening, and I would say it with confidence. The reason is that it would make you feel better, and that is important on this world. But I can't. And the reason I can't is that if people belive it can't happen it may increase the chances of it happening!

For the record I thought your essay was horribly underrated George. I think that proves my superficial postulate that most authors only see their own agenda. Bit I'd like to invite you, as a scientist, to look under the superficial. And by the way, when I said 'extinction' it was not just of our freedom but genuinely suggesting we may not even get NEAR the dinosaurs as a species now physicists look at ALL potential advances that break ruling paradigms as automatically crackpottery. There's no worse fascist 'regime of fear' than that.

I have to summon up some courage, and need help from you. I have actually now discovered and demonstrated exactly HOW maths has fooled us, and why we havn't been able to marry QM with relativity. Highly unliky I know, and I can see your eyes glazing over, but prove me wrong (and look at the above post) and think about this;

AE invented the 'mathematical construct' of 'lateral waves' to allow SR. They have no quantum or physical basis. The Doppler equation describes how wavelengths change, but again is a 'construct' and can't physicaly make ANYTHING change! If we can show how equivalence can work WITH a quantum field ('ether'- that supports entanglement), with the Quantum mecahanical process, we can start catching up with 100yrs of lost physics. I'm in the awful position of having found this. What the ***king hell do I do!! Just forget about it?? I sometimes wish I could! A few from a little down the food chain have confirmed it's right and are excited (and have given me good public ratings) but seem scared of sticking necks out! Please have a look and check it out properly for me, and let me know if I'm a crackpot or not! (and help disprove my lead postulate!).

The original webarchive paper is on; http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0047 I can't publish the latest one solving astronomical anomolies yet as it's 'being considered'.

Very best regards, and hope the adjudicators give your essay the credit it deserves too.

Peter Jackson

Dear Eckard

Thanks, I hadn't read the content of the many posts on your essay, and thanks for your support.

At one level my excercise here is a test of how seriously we've taken Poppers views on paradigms. This site should be their best chance. The jury's still (literally!) out.

I didn't want to use it just to 'showcase' the discovery as that's not the purpose of the competition, but it did give a perfect opportunity to demonstrate what's wrong and what is limiting us. The bottom line is we've forgotten that nature is actually not a mathematical construct.

I'm having some interesting thoughts about your wave, see my notes on your posts, but I will probably revert. We seem to have a few glimpses of the same genuine reality from different reference frames in these essays!

Peter

Dear Eckard

I re-read your essay. It's amazing how much we can miss when skimming over a lot of essays. I referred to glimpses of reality in your posts, I think between us we have a pretty good picture!

In my current paper I think I identified why we can't unify physics conceptually, it's because we need to actually achieve physical frequency modulation of light, and mathematical constructs themselves can't do it. I'm now sure I know what does. You may understand the rest of the picture if you have the Discrete Field Model in mind. (it's under consideration by a PR journal but I'd expect rejection as some isn't 19th century physics).

But you seem to have done the bit I couldn't;

"Sinusoidal and exponential functions are not subject to the restricted reduction to a basic singularity. Therefore they alone are unfit to describe real processes." and; "Differential equations are not the primary relations in physics but they arose by stripping off the link to reality and hence they opened the door for ambiguity."

Absolutely brilliant. I hope you don't mind if I quote you. I may revert to your posts shortly to discuss waves a little more.

Peter

George

Yes, I do agree, and I think Eckard (link to his essay above) is there too. He has an excellent analysis of exactly where maths lost touch with physical reality (see quote 2 posts up).

And if you haven't read his essay you must do so.

I plan to check out your website asap.

As collaberative papers carry more weight than individuals we may need to consider this, unless we can persuade a suitably 'eminent' person to look.

I feel we may need to deal with the left side of the brains of the science community first; Pick a small and entirely provable but interesting part of the picture first, then build on it piece by logical piece till they suddenly see the whole jigsaw picture filled in for themselves.

Or if you have a plan let me know!

Peter

Dear George

Nice plan. I also planned the peer review route but it seems only 1 in 1m even get read unless it's about something very obscure and quite short.

That gave rise to my 'top layer' postulate that we may now be done for. When the real answer to the problems does arise, however well evidenced, it will be buried in a mountain of unpublished paper, hidden behind scores of worthless unfalsifiable theories and would never even get read let alone understood, analysed, evaluated and recognised.

I have to smile at the fools who say the peer review system must work as all good discoveries have come via that route. They seem to be the same ones who think only maths can be used to prove anything, and who point the boney fascist finger and cry 'crackpot' so often. The lack of the simplest logic among those who are supposed to be using the scientific method beggars belief!

I had a eureka moment which formed my model, but from the posts only a handful of others have shared that so far, recognising the result = unification. I'm not sure you're one. Could you advise, or check again and let me know if you see any issue there? I've tried to disprove it many times and failed, finding even the most bizarre prediction it can throw up to be already observed.

The new paper currenty under consideration (Hah!) makes it clearer, but I'd like to know and understand any perceived issues at all with the first one.

Many Thanks Peter

George

I agree, including that communication between scientists is horrifically bad.

My "it" is my model.(which, yes, does allow unification). I've tried to disprove the model in every way. It's come up with lots of predictions, but when I've researched them each one has come up proven! Apparant superluminal motion, (See Nimtz, Berkeley, M87 etc etc). Shapiro delay anomolies (see Evelyn Gates comments; 'must be missing some physics' or having to 'change the cosmological model' etc). EM waves slowing but resuming 'c' instantly on release from BEC (Lena Hau at Harvard). Planetary probe approach anomolies (just found that hidden away as strange 'winds'). Flyby anomaly etc etc etc. all explained!! As well as all the SR paradoxed resolved. It's frightning!!

I'll give you a series of conceptual bullet points here. I don't like doing this without the evidence attached as it invites scepticism, but, as you know the evidence and logic exists, try these.

The Discrete Field Model; (DFM).

* Retains the postulates of SR as written, but not all assumptions. Equivalence is maintained.

* The crazy cloud of oscillating free action particles that grows around an accelerating proton is present around all mass and proportional (1/137th

Hi Eckard

Thanks, yes it was a forbidden symbol. Completed key points here.

I understand it's not your field, but part of the problem is that it overlaps a number of 'fields'. Any thoughts are welcomed.

I believe the point for you is that it demonstrates very similar issues with regard to present understanding of the complexity and characteristics of waves. A simple conceptual point is; why do polarisers have to work in two planes, i.e. 3 dimensionally, with transverse waves?

* Retains the postulates of SR as written, but not all assumptions. Equivalence is maintained.

* The crazy cloud of oscillating free action particles that grows around an accelerating proton is present around all mass and proportional (1/137th upwards) to velocity through all background fields.

* 'All mass' includes all particles and loose groups of particles including the immediate space around them, at all scales, up to and beyond Molecules, Planets, Heliospheres and Galaxies.

* There are "an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other." (A. Einstein. 1952). These are not just 'systems of co-ordinates' but real discrete fields or 'regions of space' around all mass.

* At all such field boundaries perturbation generates oscillating particle clouds in 'shocks' & halo's.

* EM waves travel at 'c' through and with respect to all 'regions of space', or 'dark energy fields'.

* Maths does not create physical Doppler wavelength shifts. The dense clouds of oscillating particles do this by modulating frequency in a similar way to FM radio modulation.

* The frequency of EM waves is thereby shifted at shocks, maintaining 'c' through each field.

* Spacecraft, astronauts & measuring instruments all have their own fields. Size, density, oscillation frequency, and ergo Doppler shift are all subject to relative velocity, giving beautiful symmetry.

* All anomalies of SR and the main anomalies of Astronomy (lensing delays, superluminal motion, galactic fringe stability, Pioneer/Voyager and flyby anomalies etc.) are resolvable by the model.

* The model allows a preferred 3rd background frame, allowing a quantum 'dark energy' field but also invariance and equivalence.

* Lateral waves are recognised as mathematical constructs and not real physical entities. Particles in motion oscillate but EM waves are the variation of a real property through a real medium.

* Individual particles, including photons, are not conserved. 'c' is maintained by field energy and energetic 'wave bundle' particles are condensed by local perturbation, and absorbed ('annihilated').

It's not a theory but a model, and one that's passed every test I can find to throw at it. It also helps prove your postulate about mathematics. If you can think of other tests do please advise.

Thanks

Peter

Eckard/George

Someone has just 'pointed out' a flaw in my logic and understanding of SR. I hadn't used the relativistic velocity addition equation.

Bless!

But it has helped clarify for me another area where math has caused us to loose touch with logic and the physical world.

He passed on a nice website description of the relativistic adjustment to ensure infinity (an aberration in itself!) the division by 1 plus vu/c2. (link below). Of course the paper also provides my DFM 'Third Frame' condition of observer B measuring relative velocity of A and C, where a simple velocity addition or subtraction must be used (whether relativistic or not). The site is http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

Now eshew the normal route of resorting to equations and retain logic; If A is a galaxy, moving at z=4 towards a gas jet C (as say M87) doing 0.98c, then the apparent motion between the two as observed by B can, and will, be well over c.

(again whether each is relativised or not). One may be moving quite slowly but the relative speed observed still be superluminal.(M87 is actually a special case,- but more another time). It's the same simplest of equations but with a minus sign if they're moving apart.

It's a pure victory for numbers and self delusion over nature and intellegence that's stopped us recognising our failure of logic here - till now. It's similar for the Doppler equation and wave function.

That's far from all the story but let's take straightening out physics in easy chunks as simplicity seems so difficult to believe!

Please let me know if the above analysis is clear enough as it's now in the paper!

I am sometimes flabergasted by our dimness, but I'm sure you guys can see the logic!?

Best regards, Peter