Hi Eckard

OK, Forget 'z' (to do with redshift & galactic recession velocity) and just consider a galaxy 'A' moving across the sky left to right with respect to the observer at rest frame 'B', at a velocity 'v' of 0.4c. A gas jet 'C' is moving (right to left from the observers frame) towards the galaxy at velocity 'u', say 0.98c. ('M87' is galaxy Messier87 which has a gas jet recently confirmed at 5 to 6c across Hubbles frame and reputedly doing 0.98c in the local frame).

This is the alternative condition correctly referred to in the web paper as requiring simple velocity addition equation, whether each ones speed is relativised or not. No other logical option exists and it's well known, but the implications are not well understood! You're right about the normal conditions result never being greater than 'c', But relativise 0.98c and 0.4c if you wish, and when you add them together they still come to far greater than 'c'. i.e. the relative speed between A and C is superluminal viewed from B. Remember this is not necessarily when viewed from A or C according to SR, but does give valid apparent superluminal motion from the 3rd frame 'B'. Many relativists would deny this is possible, and that's where it all relied on maths not logic and went wrong.

Now to your sound waves. Consider standing at the centre of a football stadium. With 80,000 people cheering which way do the molecules bump into each other? Wouldn't they get a bit confused? If you're in a soundproof box with a long tube or directional microphone sticking out how could you pick out a sound waves from two people shouting something specific from that direction when there are 79,998 other waves they have to fight their way through messing up the wave pattern? Analog superposition can only go so far! Sound energy propagation, like light, is a lot less simplistic than maths and current science would have us believe. Or am I missing something? (I'm no expert on sound but that one may perhaps allow a relatively easy experiment!?).

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #63

Dear Peter,

You may trust in my knowledge: The physical aspects of acoustics are not at all enigmatic but well understood. Nonetheless, there is still a lot of discrepancy between theory of hearing, physiology and psychophysics.

What about your A, B, C, I do not understand why do you question the impossibility of any relative velocity to exceed c? You wrote:

"galaxy 'A' moving across the sky left to right with respect to the observer at rest frame 'B', at a velocity 'v' of 0.4c. A gas jet 'C' is moving (right to left from the observers frame) towards the galaxy at velocity 'u', say 0.98c.

At first, I do not understand why it matters if you choose just B at rest.

Secondly, if I understood you correctly, A, B, C are not moving along a common straight line in which case the calculation I referred to was applicable.

Thirdly, your description seems to be very imprecise: "across the sky left to right" and "right to left".

If you maintain that superluminal velocity is possible, could you please exactly describe the mutual distances and relative speeds AB, BC, CA and what apparent speed you are considering superluminal?

Maybe, you refer to an understandable source?

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard

The choice of 'B' simply derived from the Baez link I gave you; http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

The comment 'across the sky' in context is to make it clear 'B' is a separated 3rd frame, observing 'from a distance', as A and C, approach each other, along a "common straight line".

We can use the standard formulae to relativise the velocity of A, and then similarly the velocity of B. Let's say the relativised velocity of A reduces from just below c to 0.95c. (slower clock). And say the same calculation for the relativised velocity of B reduces it to 0.39c. (all standard stuff).

As the Baez paper, (see the 'alternative' example) and every good textbook, confirms; The 'closing velocity' between A and C, as observed from rest frame B, (say a light year or more away) must then be a simple velocity addition.

This means when they meet their relative velocity according to B is 0.95 0.39 = 1.34c. i.e. Superluminal.

This is actually what we observe, and in very many cases. M87, first seen almost 100yrs ago and confirmed at up to 6c recently by Hubble, is an exceptionally high one, but there is another good explanation for this.

The important point is that an assumption made by most following SR is that such observation is not possible. Astronomers run a mile from mentioning it as it appears to conflict with the general understanding of SR! It does NOT however conflict with either postulate, or reality, and in fact also explains many other anomolies.

Do you understand the basic logic of it now? (Don't try to follow the rest of the logic through too far without understanding the rest of the model or you'll meet a lot more paradoxes).

Where it went wrong is where we let the link between maths and logic be severed. We've forgotten maths can be self consistent yet still not actually describe physical reality.

Think about it and ask any questions.

So can you also explain exactly how in current physics is the signal of a clear small voice preserved when crossed at all vectors by 80,000 other different and similar sound waves?

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #65

Dear Peter,

According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion you might refer to an optical illusion.

What about the superposition of sound waves, I did not get your point. The SNR is of course a negative dB value of considerable size. Not even the ear can hear a single voice out.

Regards,

Eckard

Hi Eckard

I hope you're not taking wiki-science to seriously! although in fact the most serious science can't presently rationalise observed apparent superluminal motion with the assumptive error made following SR.

If you're in a bar and see someone at the other end of the room throw a beachball towards a dart player, (at 4mph, at 90 degrees to your view) and the dart player throws a dart at it, (at 9mph), at what speed might you logically expect them to appear to meet?

If their velocities are close to light speed and relativised the total would still come to well above light speed. But if a priest was there, whose interpretation of his religion said they could only be seen to meet at a lower speed, would you a) Believe him and just puzzle at the paradox. b) Think he was a fool or drunk and want to check for yourself?

The overwhelming observational evidence matches logic and the bit of the SR evidence that says in that case velocities are added, not the conflicting supposed bit of SR, actually only assumption, which seems to say we can't see the difference as more than 'c', because they can make some maths with a flawed basis appear to agree!

Once relativised how might you imagine so many optical illusions could arise? This is the key to the problems we have, which we'll never solve till we come out of misguided religous denial.

With regard to the sound scenarion. The ear would obviously send too many signals to the brain! You've forgotten the directional microphone I referred to. Use the most sensitive fine directional mike imaginable, clear a space around a girl calling and point the mike at her. Now have 80,000 others shouting from the stands from all angles.

As I understand present physics, if she was alone in the stadium her voice would travel via variations of actual particle movement translating the signal from particle to particle in 'wave' variations. With 80,000 other waves, many of the same tone etc, crossing this, superposed at all angles, one might expect her 'signal' integrity to be destroyed by the very confused particles! They cannot move in all directions at the same time! I understand from interpolated observation however that the directional mike will successfully pick ut her voice, which could then be further 'cleaned' spectroscopically.

The postulate therefore is that the quantum mechanism for translation of sound wave energy signals may be a little more subtle than 19th century physics suggested, possibly involving the more complex internal particle oscillation we have so far reserved only for EM waves.

Does that help clarify the question? Or might it be an inaudible illusion?

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #67

Dear Peter,

Are your arguments valid? Even without gamma, could addition of the velocities for two objects moving relative to each other yield a higher velocity than twice the larger one? I cannot imagine this. The observed 6c must have a different cause.

My experience with interpreting high speed videos of welding arc phenomena tells me: It tends to be difficult or even impossible to conclude from observed apparent speed of propagating bright cathode jets on how fast the particles move.

I recall that Nimtz also claimed having observed superluminal propagation of signals. While he was never taken seriously, his mistake was not obvious. The strongest arguments that he was wrong were the facts that he neither could demonstrate a useful application over many years nor did he himself understand what happened. The signal processing community attributed his mistake to his use of inappropriate measures of velocity. Indeed, Nimtz never managed to measure a superluminal front speed. I criticize that his use of complex calculus included future time.

When training students, I let perform some 1000 of them an experiment where an electric impulse traveled along a 50 Ohm cable of 10 m length within about 50 nanoseconds corresponding to 200,000 km/second. I mention this as to remind you that light is much faster than your beach ball and the frequencies/wave lengths of the impulse which are, in principle, illustrated in Fig. 2 of my essay, traveled altogether with the same velocity 2/3 c. A larger than roughly c = 300,000,000 m/s velocity of an electromagnetic wave would require the product epsilon_0 times my_0 to be smaller than roughly 1/c^2. Do you imagine the velocity of a particle possibly larger than the velocity of light as in case of supersonics? Didn't this imply to conjecture a force in excess of the electromagnetic ones?

Let me invert your idea and assume propagation of light, for instance from the sun, towards points A and B of nearly opposite directions. You are arguing that this corresponds to the sum of both velocities, i.e. 2c, right? If we look at this, does it contradict to gamma? I do not think so. A photon that traveled left and then moved right after being reflected from A will arrive at B on the opposite side not with a higher velocity than c but later.

Your idea with the directional microphone sound funny for an expert. I still did not get your point. Superposition works well except in case of non-linearity. Of course, sound waves propagate in media with discrete molecules. However, this merely utters itself as noise.

Regards,

Eckard

Hi Eckard

You took a brave step indentifying the departure of mathematical constructions from physical reality. One more similar step will give you the proof. But you can see the start of that step when you say;

"Let me invert your idea and assume propagation of light, for instance from the sun, towards points A and B of nearly opposite directions. You are arguing that this corresponds to the sum of both velocities, i.e. 2c, right? If we look at this, does it contradict to gamma? I do not think so."

So now consider 2 suns. They send photons at 'c' towards each other, so their relative velocity when they cross is 2c, or just a little less when relativised. Agreed?

Now consider giving your students TWO 50 Ohm cables, side by side, but sending the signals similtaneously in opposite directions. The signals will cross at a relative speed of around 400,000km/sec. I also assume you agree with that.

And if you happen to be moving one of the cables longitudinally at the same time you will simply add or subtract that additional velocity. ok?

Now you're nearly there. Consider each cable as a 'field', and EM pulses HAVE to travel at a given constant speed wrt that field. (with photons through a vacuum it is 'c'). OK?

Now if you re-read what I previously stated, remembering that but not any previous 'assumptions', you should see the whole picture.

Using M87 is a bit of an overstatement as you're right, it's a special case, but there are dozens of others at less than 2c. We have a strong theory for M87 which worlks if it's ejected from a fast rotating black hole, but that's another matter.

Nimtz wasn't alone, and there were dozens of 'explanations', but his work was repeated, or extended, at Berkeley. It's only ever been the Spanish Inquisition who have banned it's acceptance. Len Hau has also done the reverse at Harvard. None of the results have broken either postulate of SR.

Sound isn't my subject, though aspects of waves are, and I quite understand your view, however you're failing into the same trap you've exposed in saying superposition 'works well'. I'm doing this work with colleague Judith Whiffen, springing partly from the work of Davis Whiffen (ex UK NPL Head) new Deceased who was a top man in spectroscopy and superposition. The latter works well as a mechanical construct describing results, but there's no real evidence from physical reality, and we've now forgotten it's even needed! You cannot similaneously physically bash a billiard ball against all it's surrounding neighbours. Maths can agree with final results as much as it likes, but it does not actually explain any physical process!! All top physicists have recognised this. What I'm saying is that the physical process is more subtle and involves particle spin/oscillation and frequency modulation. (The model so derived is entirely physical and, frighteningly, explains almost all observed and mathematical anomolies.)!

There's now stacks of evidence for this but the mathematicians are complacently saying it's not only wrong but not necessary as maths has got it sorted. So do you really beleive sound only needs 'discrete molecule' billiard balls!?? And, if not, do you have another theory?? Do you think we should just trust maths and look elsewhere for answers? (Where?). So now, at this level not that of a student, what options can you see to particle oscillation/frequency involvement?

Peter

Eckard

I think the models' just passed a stiff test from Arjen Djikesman, about refraction. Check his posts if you'd like to see.

Do let me have any comments.

Best wishes

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #70

Dear Peter,

When you supported Nimtz's claim having measured superluminal propagation of signals you lost my support. His claim did not and will not provide a technical application. It was proven wrong several times.

I also do not appreciate your speculation (in the Dijksman thread) that light is a wave that propagates within dark matter which you seem to imagine like ether.

What about the addition of velocities, I would like to remind you of the possibility to observe constructive and destructive interference between an original wavefront and the reflected one.

I apologize for no longer discussing here. I will try and explain instead what I consider lacking comprehension in the basics of mathematics. See my comments on the recent FQXi article.

Regards,

Eckard

Hi Eckard

If you're still following; You obviously missed the key bit on addition of velocities. It's an unavoidable part of the present paradigm that in the circumstances of a 3rd frame observing two others closing on each other, the velocities, whether relativised or not, are simply added or subtracted. See the 'other' condition in the Baez link I gave, and also Ned Wrights excellent site, referring to why apparrent superluminal relative velocities have to occur.

Interference between wavefronts is central to my question about sound. How can 80,000 wave fronts crossing from different angles not interfere at all?

We've all been a bit 'head in the sand' with our unquestioning religious adherence to old paradigms. Dark matter and the dark energy field are facts we must face up to. It seems Einstein was right and nature "has revealed to us" the answers, already there surrounding accelerated particles, but we have to be prepared to look.

Science is about questioning and testing. I agree with most of your postulates, but I don't beleive you'll make any real progress, or find the real answer, until you look further outside the box. But I wish you luck.

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #72

Peter,

no further discussion, just a joke: Sensation: Photo-printing many thousand times faster than light: A 314 km long piece of light-sensitive paper behind a mask is wound like a spiral around a central point with a distance growing from 100 km to 100.000,001 m and exposed to a flash light exactly within the center of the spiral.

Enjoy,

Eckard

Lovely model Eckard

But the wavefront of the white 'developing' part of the paper couldn't possibly travel round the spiral at greater than 'c' of course. The mind boggles at what shape the spiral has to take up with contraction!

It took over 200yrs before anyone cound countenance Newton being challenged, then we put on a big spurt. One day physics will progress again, I wonder if it will take just as long.

Best wishes

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #74

The velocity of a wavefront propagating in space is always to be measured orthogonal to the front.

Eckard

Spot on. But superposition is also important, as is consideration of non information carrying phase and group velocities (similar to your photo example).

If you're still not happy with Nimtz and Chiao et al's work have a check on the increasingly rapid evolution of the Wiki page on superliminal motion since the publication of my first viXra paper. It seems like a bit of a snowball effect. (the 2nd has now been sent for posting - in the Astronomy section).

Science is catching up as we write, and suspect it may may be very useful for your own work to keep your finger on the pulse!

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #76

Eckard.

Lovely detailed article in the latest New Scientist about how a top Oxford mathematician objected and rebelled so much about what we'd now term 'Alice in Wonderland' mathematics of such things as imaginary numbers and quaternions, loosing touch with physical reality, that he wrote a book in parody. He used a pen name and called it 'Alice in Wonderland'!

They call him 'Conservative'

He may yet end up canonised!!

Do you know the book?

Peter

ok guys, new shorter paper dealing with how the DFM resolves astronomical anomalies, and other inductive evidence etc. just published; http://vixra.org/abs/0912.0041

I hope you'll find it solid, groundbreaking and inspiring. But please do give me any comments on it or ask any questions.

Hope you have a good Christmas break.

Peter

14 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #78

Hi Peter

I've been watching your posts, and don't think Eckard really understands what he's looking at. I was sceptical myself as your predictions seemed quite astonishing, and to challenge SR, though I now understand better. BUT!!

NASA have just issued their rather overdue LUNAR LASER RANGING RESULTS, the first relly accurate experimental test of SR. They do not follow the predictions of SR, but they match your predictions perfectly!!!!! This must be almost as significant as Eddington!!!

It's no wonder they were delayed, the papers, from the Goddard Space Flight Centre, are exceptionally thorough and accurate (both on arXiv). They don't draw any wild conclusions but are a massive bombshell none the less. Congratulations, you have another solid supporter. I can't now believe how I didn't see it myself!! I enjoyed reading your papers, and am now looking forward to the third. I hope yopu enjoy the NASA papers.

I hope you have a splendid new year, but I know what troglodytes surround us so wish you the best of luck.

Jamie

  • [deleted]

  • Post #79

Hi Mr Jackson ,

I read this thread and I see two errors ,foundamentals ,about c and the dark energy ,one is invariant ,constant and the other doesn't exist.

I agree too like Eckard about the propagation of the light .

That has no sense that dear Peter .Really .

When you speak about the sphere light ,could you develop a little your point of vue please ?

Best Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #80

Hi Peter

Just to let you know that, unlike Steve above, there are people out here who DO understand the brilliant logic and simple science of your model.

Steve; If you don't understand what the Schrodinger Sphere of expanding light is you'll never even understand the problem let alone the answer! The whole point about Peters DFM is that is shows how 'C' can be TOTALLY invariant, without paradox!!

I really do fully understand you essay as well now Peter, it must be very frustrating. A bit like Planck discovering the quanta, but the physics world ignoring him or saying it's nonsense. I'm working in medicine now so wouldn't carry any weight in fundamental physics, but be assured there are some with fully working mental capacities out here!

I really do wish you the best of luck with our colleagues (I like the word Troglodytes above!). I't be the most deserved Noble prize ever!!

Jude

Hi Steve.

I see some of your points are quite well answered above. But to illucidate:

1. 'c' is, if anything, even more invariant in the Discrete Field Model as in the 'simple' version of SR without the DFM. The Doppler shifting witnesses this by evidencing it's change at the boundary of each field in relative motion.

2. The new NASA results are fully consistent with this model and nothing else, including, unequivacally, the 'non DFM' version of SR!! (Thank you Jamie for spotting them). I've now read them and they're exceptionally well considered and high quality papers that should dispell a lot of misunderstanding. Links;

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818v2

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934v2

3. So Dark Energy doesn't exist! I wish you'd told me sooner. And there was I believing all the latest data from space, Astrophysicists, and the Sloane Digital Sky Survey showing it made up, along with dark matter (halo's etc) 73% of the matter/energy in the universe!! Actually there must be something there if it has Impedence etc. etc, and a temperature (2.7degrees). It exists anyway in the model as models are for testing hypothesise. This one has passed all tests so far!!

4. I am, like Jude, a bit concerned at your lack of knowledge of light spheres, which added to your limited knowledge about dark energy does unfortunately seem to degrade your opinion! If you do some more homework you may see a different picture. There's plenty just on the web!. Then read the actual papers on the DFM.

To help; If you imagine a light bulb flashes in space. The light will travel from it at 'c' in all directions, so the 'wave front' will form a sphere, expanding at 'c' (or, in fact, the opposite surfaces expand at 2c relatively).

If some of the light enters a galaxy heading towards the bulb it it slowed down (and Dopler shifted at the halo) in relation to the light going past the galaxy. This, along with smaller light path and GravLensing effects, gives the Einstein lensing and Shapiro Delays, (Lensed light delayed componed measured by spectroscopy at over 3 years in one recent case!).

Let me know if you understand or not once you've read the NASA papers etc.

Peter