• [deleted]

Light Reflections: "One way to see such effects would be to examine the propagation of light. Imagine bouncing a beam of light off the surface of Alpha Centauri, the nearest star."

Would not it be better to imagine throwing a number of balls at a rubber wall, and having them rebound all at once? the wall holding on to the individual balls as the rubber stretches, until it slingshots them all at once?

The light arriving at AC would be absorbed into atomic structure, the structure throws photons back out to source (as long as source is linear?)..for a certain instance, the Electron configuration of structure must alter and adjust to accomodate arriving Photons. Not all Photons will return to source, some Photons at detector would be local "noise/impurities" ?

Photons spend a vast amount of their existence isolated from interactions, think of all the light from all the galaxies in the Universe, photons in transit between galaxies travel for eons, until the interact with matter/atoms, which happen to be located within galaxies. Thus no matter how accurate our lasers to bounce light of objects, those objects will absorb and interact with any available photons sent from other galactic locations?

Just go outside and look into the night sky, the billions of Stars flickering are sending photons into your eyes, just how do you determing which photons originated from where?..its like redusing your size down to a quark, looking upwards and outwards to the Electron shroud, as far as you are concerned there is but a single Electron,and it contains you and the Quarks, you have to conclude your existence is bound and constrained inside the Electron!

A specific type of "tagged" photon is needed, the "DNA" in this context would have to recognise photons as individuals,and must be expressed un-entangled and unique?

Very interesting, best p.v

  • [deleted]

"It is quite likely that perturbation theory is giving us misleading results."

At last!!!

Of course it is.

And it is just used because no one has bothered looking for an alternative.

So, at least Richard Woodard is moving in the right direction.

  • [deleted]

Here's a new idea regarding quantum gravity and the reconciliation of GR and QM.

I have now shown that the masses of ~ 20 most common/stable particles [100 Mev to 6500 Mev] can be related by the expresson M = n^1/2 times [correted Planck mass].

Here is a preliminary description; a more detailed discussion is available upon equest.

Kerr solution: J = aGM^2/c

m(n) = [n]^1/2 [constant], i.e., sqrt[n] [constant]

where: a = 1/n and

constant = corrected Planck mass = 674 Mev

-n----n]^1/2[constant]----Empirical mass---Agreement

1/36------112.3------muon 105.7------------94.0 %

1/25------134.8------pi 134.98-----------99.9 %

1/2--------476.6-----k 497.7-------------95.8 %

3/4--------583.7-----eta 547.8--------------93.4%

1----------674---------Planck mass-------- -----

2----------953.2-------proton 938-------------98.3 %

2----------953.2-------neutron939.2?--------98.5%

2----------953.2-------eta' 958--------------99.5 %

3--------1167.4-------Lambda 1115.7------95.4 %

3--------1167.4-------Sigma 1192----------97.9 %

4--------1348.0-------Xi 1314.8------------97.5 %

5--------1507.1-------N ~ 1450------------96.1 %

6--------1651---------Omega 1672.5-------98.7 %

7--------1783---------TAU 1784.1---------99.95%

8--------1906.3-------D 1864.-------------97.8 %

10------2131.4-------D(s) 2112.2-----------99.1 %

12------2334.8-------Lam(c)2284.9---------97.8%

Well, that is the 16 most common and stable of the

particles observed, with the exception of the electron

which has n = 1/(1319)^2 and I want to study that a

bit more. Maybe only a full K-N solution will suffice here.

My argument is that this high degree of ordering

demands an explanation. The fact that it was achieved

with the admittedly very approximate Kerr solution

makes things even more interesting. The fact that

Discrete Scale Relativity is definitively required to

determine the crucial value of the corrected Planck

mass should be fully appreciated.

It appears that subatomic particle masses are eigenvaules of the Kerr-Newman solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations.

Happy Winter Solstice [33rd anniversary of DSR]

Robert L. Oldershaw

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

  • [deleted]

Hi all ,

Very interesting this article .

The origin of the mass is fascinating .It is so important to have the real taxonomy and their mass .Personally I beleive the secret of the mass is these rotating spheres .Thus the taxonmy of the spheres is imporatnt like the speed of rotations .The spinals rotations are the causes of the mass .The orbitals I don't know .Now the volumes and the specific number must be rational in its fractal of divisibility .

The infinity thus in this logic of serie ,closed ,has no sense for the correlation in my opinion .The fractal of spheres and the number are specifics like the volumes too and all proportionality like the fields too .

I don't think what the infinity is correct ,because in the unique system like one quantum system in one Universe ,the infinity is not inserted ,of course if you multiplicate for exemple the particles ,logic to have a king of infinity but not for the uniqueness .

Dear Robert ,please could you develop a little please this gauge ,it is interesting for the classment .

Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

The problem is a renormalization group flow problem. Gravity might at the end supply the solution to this problem. The AdS spacetime is similar to the Poincare disk, and the motion of particles from the boundary at E = ∞, or from a quantum gravity perspective E = sqrt(Għ/c^3), and returns to the boundary with E - - > 0. The modular structure of this flow connects these two extreme energy domains to a conformal field theory defined at the boundary. This renormalization group flow is then moderated by the structure of the spacetime. This is a nonperturbative renormalization process, for the corresponding Polchinski-Wilson equation will have no perturbative expansion which fits beyond the single loop expansion.

Cheers LC

  • [deleted]

erratum, Sorry but I put the Planck length in for the energy. The real high energy term would be the Planck mass sqrt(ħc^5/G).

Cheers LC

  • [deleted]

We can add infnities 1/3 CUCUMBER+ 1/3 GREEN BANANA+ 1/3 GREEN APPLE= 1 GREEN SALAD............

Infinity is equal to 1/3........Pi is not actually infnity.

1/3+1/3+1/3=1.

So if we ca add three infinite equations QUANTUM+ RELATIVITY+ RELATIVITY= 1.

Then we can get one equation for quantum and Einstein.............

Try this.

Steve.

Or try 2/3+ 2/3+ 2/3= 2.............That is beastly because it is infnite 666.

  • [deleted]

Today's lesson is the important distinction between "Model-Building Theories" and "Theories Of Principle".

----------------------------

On Jan 12, 4:55 am, Juergen Barsuhn wrote [at sci.astro.research]:

> Nowadays these computations > could be "easily" redone with

> a variety of parameters.

> If Oh No is right, then in some

> computations Hot Jupiters should > show up.

But Juergen, we want more than computer models that can reproduce the empirical results.

That is called "model-building" and the Ptolemaic Model of the Solar System was surprisingly good at it. Reproducing the phenomena analytically is NOT necessarily the same as understanding the phenomena.

This is a crucial point for science, but it has been given only lip-service for decades. And look at what we get: stellar theory that cannot predict anything beyond the data it was made to fit.

What the scientist wants is a "Theory Of Principle" that explains what nature is actually doing [see work of Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, etc.], i.e., how nature actually works.

Theories Of Principle can make Definitive Predictions, and can be

verified/falsified definitively [Einstein said if the eclipse

experiment came out in Newton's favor then General Relativity was

fundamentally flawed].

I do not want to reject model-building completely since it can produce useful first steps [e.g., quantum mechanics and very reasonable explanations for many phenomena in stellar astrophysics]. However, we deceive ourselves and do a disservice to science when we settle for ad hoc model-building instead of Theories Of Principle, as a final goal.

The scientist does not treat effectively untestable models as anything more than pseudoscientific speculation.

Ulrich

  • [deleted]

Hi all ,

Dear Stephen ,

1/3+1/3+1/3=1.

It is very simple and relevant your post ,

About 666 ....like what the devil is in the detail .

Why to find the infinity which is behind our walls ,the physicality is finite and has its specific number of spheres .If the physicality has been created ,it is for a specific rule of building.

The infinity is behind our walls ,perhaps the spaces due to an add or a multiplication seems infinite but the Universe is finite .

Best Regards

Steve

    • [deleted]

    Dear Ulrich ,

    The nature is simple and if a superimposing of models is made ,that has no sense for me ,only for a specific principle ,adapted in function of personal and human parametrs .The confusion thus appears without a real sense about the real dynamic of our Universe .

    In principle ,correlated with the universal laws ,the systems are in harmony if and only if the harmonization of the physical axiom is inserted with the biggest pragmatism and rationality .

    Thus the problem is not there but of course in the utilisation of the universal referential and its topology in motion !!!

    Thus the rotating spheres ,quantic and cosmologic are linked in a pure thermodynamical dynamic where the rotations ,the mass ,the fields ,....are in constants in an evolutive point of vue .

    The utilisation of the referential ,always and still ....

    The pseudo sciences even with a human superimposing shall imply always confusions about the physicality .Is it thus foundamental ,yes if and only if the laws and specificties are correlated in logic .The complexity returns to the simplicity .

    It exists only one universal model and the superimposing must be inside a closed system !!!

    Regards

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    Hi all ,

    The infinity is a human invention ,like a wall of our perception in fact .It is the same about some imaginaries of our mind .Let's take the zero ,in math logic 1.0=0 ,you imagine if the number 1 is the Universe ,thus pragmaticaly the 0 doesn't exist in the physicality ,like the - .

    You imagine an infinite expansion in an ifinite universe where all expands and thus shan't interact in the future ,already what our distances are important.No let's be pragmatic ,the Universe has an aim of building to optimize the future interactions between mass systems and their lifes ,intelligences and conscious.Why this infinity which implies a confusion in our series and extrapolations about the physicality .It is the limits I think which are more foundamental than this infinite gauge .Even in a pure thermodynamical link inside a closed system ,that has more sense in fact.

    In conclusion ,we can say ...the maths yes of course but when we speak about the physicality ,the maths must be under the driving force of physics .Thus the topology in a finite referential with the correct number shall imply the correct serie thus the best extrapolations about our Universal sphere in evolution .

    If an infinity exists ,it is above our understanding .Already we are still youngs and we don't undestand well our solar system ,thus why insert the infinity ,we don't know even our galaxy ,this milky way .It could be better to focus thus to the real physicality and its spheres ,all has a rule of complementarity .How many stars exist in our galaxy ,we have an approximation but the real dynamic and number ,the volumes ,their velocities of rotations thus their mass...furthermore if all turns around an universal center ,thus you can imagine the motion .Even the rule of the centers like stars or BH ,we don't understand well ,thus why an infinity .Let's centralize the studies on a pragmatic and rational analyze .I am persuaded it exists so many physical secrets ,like tools ,even in the planet of our solar system ,sure it exists new minerals ,gaz ,solids ,liquids ,....all has a rule ,we are voyagers of the Universe in fact but the relativity seems imply a kind of wisdom about our limits .We are catalyzers in fact and we have splendid physical tools around us .

    It is the same with a simple fact ,1000 scientist on 1 system are better than 1000 places in competition .The potential is incredible but we are youngs ,but we evolve fortunaly .HIHI a bizare planet this Earth ,all turns except our intrinsic system .The potential always will take the road of the balance like the expansion and the contraction of a beautiful sphere .

    Just a thought

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    A very nice example of what I am trying to call attention to

    has just been identified.

    In the Jan. 14th issue of Nature is a paper that claims to

    resolve a serious problem that has plagued the CDM cosmology

    for a long time. The CDM theory required a high density of matter

    and dark matter in the central regions of galaxies.

    Empirical observations showed that this expectation was wrong.

    Theoretical types have been trying to 'save the phenomenon'

    here for a decade or more, in spite of nature's reluctance to go

    along with the CDM Standard Model [note also the very serious

    problem of the missing dark matter halo objects: 100s to 1000s

    predicted and about 10−50 sketchy candidates/galaxy observed.

    This has prompted much pipe-dreaming and pretzel logic to again

    'save the phenomenon'].

    So now international teams of theorists using "millions of hours

    on supercomputers" have run SIMULATIONS that reproduce the

    desired phenomenon. Just so! Break out the champagne!

    Mission Accomplished!

    But does anyone else see some reasons for very serious misgivings

    here?

    (1) The "correct" answer was assumed to be known from the start.

    (2) Theorists were not going to give up until they got the "right"

    answer.

    (3) Using computers and many adustable parameters you can

    get whatever you want. One thinks of Johnny von Neumann's

    dictum that with 3 variables he could produce an elephant and

    with 4 variables he could get it to wag its tail. Or something to

    that effect.

    We are predetermining how nature should be, and then "validating"

    that bias by hook or by crook.

    An alternative [and more scientific] strategy is to let nature

    guide us empirically, and to have the humility and integrity

    to say: "Gee, maybe we our assumptions are wrong;

    let's try different ideas!"

    Am I alone on this issue, or do others worry about these

    issues too?

    Yours in science [the kind that was practiced in 1905−1925,

    not untestable postmodern pseudoscience],

    Robert L. Oldershaw

    www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

      Alpha Centuri isn't yet necessary Richard. If you haven't seen them yet you should check out the NASA Lunar Ranging Analysis just out in 2 excellent papers from Dan Gezari.(arXiv). But you must also certainly be right that light from AlphaC would hit fluctuations. The most recent Shapiro lensing delay spectroscopy shows ridiculously anomolous 3 year delays! Einstein decided space must be; "many 'spaces' in relative motion." in 1954.

      You may like to check something out. It's "..disguised as something we don't recognise as a quantum correction." And in terms of the Casidio view about the answer "being in a room behind a locked door," it leads us round to another door to the room and provides the key. It's the; "Theory of Principle - how nature actually works" that Ulrich so perceptively identifies is needed.

      Lets step back a bit, and test a (real) model; We've known for a while that the Ether AE removed to allow SR does actually exist as a quantum field, with many known properties. Let's also face up to the fact that we know from the Sagnac effect, much other evidence, and now the NASA papers, that it may be SR that needs a bit of tweaking, which may then throw new light on GR.

      So try this test. We've handed out something to the whole class. It's an FM radio. If you rush hither and thither, in cars or on Concord, it has a tiny single oscillator which modulates the EM waves it receives to be exactly the same as transmitted. It can do this because 'c' is constant, and, whatever relative speed the waves arrive due to it's own motion, it sends them on at 'c', Doppler shifted back to the original frequency. Job done. Perfect sound.

      Now consider; If only we had billions of these tiny oscillating particles, and could surround ourselves with them when we moved, we could ensure we always measured light at 'c' however fast we went! think about it!! OK it would end up blue or red shifted, but we can't have everything.

      Last bit; Now consider what happens to mass moving through the quantum field. A bunch of protons developes a thick cloud of oscillating particles that, try what may, CERN just can't seem to get rid of! Our galaxy does something similar, develops a massive halo of 'dark matter' particles as it rushes through deep space. In between there's the planetary bow shocks, massively dense clouds of oscilating particles. Even the Heliosphere has it's shock boundary that seems somehow to change Pioneers and Voyagers trajectories and communication frequencies, just like our planetary bow shock does!!

      Now, considering the Michelson Morley etc. support for 'Aether Drag,' do a short thought experiment on how we think light may; travel at 'c' through deep space, also at 'c' through a galaxy in relative motion, also at 'c' through a heliosphere doing 45,000 mph through the galaxy, and yet also at 'c' through the Earths atmosphere doing 100,000 mph through the heliosphere! (then also at 'c' if we're whizzing round it in a space station - no matter which way). And remember this is a physical nature course, not theoretical maths.

      If, after some consideration, you think your answer = 'Unification,' check it at the Discrete Field Model (DFM) links in the 'Perfect Symmetry' 2009 Essay Competition posts. (3 papers) or on viXra; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010 Remember this is just a modified SR model for testing. Ruling Paradigms take a little longer to modify. Please put any questions below.

      May all your 2010 wishes come true.

      Peter Jackson

      • [deleted]

      One of the puzzles that has to be resolved in order to unit GR and QM is following: elementary particles and stellar objects move in space only and not in space-time that is a math model only. With clocks we measure velocity of motion of elementary particles and stellar objects that moves in cosmic space where time is not its 4th dimension. Cosmic itself is timeless. The speed depends on strength of gravity field in a given volume of cosmic space. Stronger gravity slower is the speed. Mercury speed is slower as it should be according to Newton mechanics. Same is valid for elementary particles; just their mass is so small that change of speed is infinitely small.

      Motion in timeless cosmic space has no duration on its own. Duration is result of measurment with clocks

      yours amrit

      6 days later
      • [deleted]

      Hi Peter ,RLO,Amrit,

      Have you already thought about an universal rotation of all around the universal center ,the motion thus takes an ther perception of our past.

      The fact to have different steps and dynamics since the primordial universe,spherical imply a necessity to class correctly this evolution and rotations since the begining ,all our datas thus need some improvements because if all turns around this center inside a sphere, thus you can understand it is a big changement of our past perception.

      The spherisation by quantum spheres with cosmological spheres take all its sense for a better understanding of our referential,actual and past and thus future.The topology is inside a finite system in evolution with a system of rotations around the universal center.In fact it is logic when we see there ality .

      Dear Peter ,this logic implies a possibility to have steps of acceleration ,or deceleration when we analyze our cosmological datas ,but the thing very important in my opinion is the actual system and its constants ,irreversibles and coherents.The question is this one ,what is important in our actual moment,the fact to have different perceptions of the past is logic but this laws have evolved and thus relatively speaking we can't use them.But a relevant point is the analyze of this serie with ou past and thus correlated with our actual universal system thus can give future foundamentals extrapolations,the rotating quantum spheres and the cosmological spheres are relevant in this line of spherisation .

      Best Regards

      Steve

      Hi Guys.

      I think we're getting a little off the subject of Richard's piece. I'm sure the model of discrete fields (DFM) as postulated by Einstein, will point the way to resolving it.

      As you know Steve I've just had the (dubious!?) honour of a Wikipedia entry on it. I'm working out how to do a few edits to improve it, but it shows very good understanding and includes much of the proof from the papers. (plus links to them). Please comment Richard. Just Google Wikipedia and DFM.

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      Dear Peter ,

      Why do you think about the MDT of Dr E.,

      The special relativity in its infinite number of spaces is coorelated if I understand well.

      You know I love Einstein, but is it a reason to accept all special relativities and the discrete steps.

      You know when Eistein spoke about the imagination, it is different than imaginaries maths.The knowledge and the imagination can interpret the objectivity objectively.

      'an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively'....very interesting if we consider an ultim entanglement of spheres with their specific combinations of rotating spheres which TURN around the universal center.The knowledge synchronizes thus the imagination for a realism and a rationalism.

      What do you think about that dear Peter...an entangled architecture of spheres in an accelerator .....the linear velocity increases the mass ,the spinal velocity of rotation of spheres decreases the mass.There the gauge and laws of the light for a good physicality are essentials in my humble opinion.Like the gravity too, there I beleive this other gauge is relevant if we consider the sense of rotation for a difference between this 2 main gauges, one linear and a paradox about the mass and the other stable in its locality.

      If we interpret above these constants and laws, coherences, irreversibilities thus the optical analyze and its superimposings can imply confusions.

      The frequence of modulation for me is inside this gauge and not above the c, on the other side the modulations of divisibility for the frequences of electromagnetism takes all its sense for an evolution where the gravity polarises the light with an intrinsic code in the gravitational stable system, the modulation is intrinsic and in a finite serie with its specific domain.

      The subjective analyze needs a synchronization where the objectivity and its universal gauges are considered with the biggest rationality and reality.

      These 2 gauges, where the linearity and the spinal rotation of quantum spheres are essentials, can definite all correlations.

      Sincerely

      Steve or tivi the belgian, this crazzy spheric man hihihi

      Steve

      I think you really need to find the ability to not look at everything just in terms of spheres sometimes! If a concept isn't falsifiable it shouldn't take up all your brain.

      The whole point of the DFM is that it IS falsifiable, and that it solves the main problem identified by this article; Unifying Relativity and QFT. A key was in unifying the concepts of Locality and Reality, or Classic & Quantum.

      And though, yes, it's based on SR and Einsteins "infinite number of spaces in relative motion", it does actually significantly revise SR, which also gets rid of all the Paradoxes and anomalies.

      A tall claim I know, but all (o.k....both!) who have read it so far agree. (You've seen their comments in my essay posts). I thought this site might be a good Forum to have it analysed and critiqued, ..but it appears not what I'd hoped, and own agendas still rule it seems.

      I'm sorry the discrete fields aren't spherical, but your concept of multiple entangled spaces is very close to reality. You did say you'd study it closer. Do let me know when you've read the 3 papers.

      Best Wishes

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      "If an infinity exists,it is above our understanding." No Steve. As do zero, point, line, etc., the ideal property to be endless is a quality. It exists as part of our attempt to understand what we may observe to some extent. I do not see any reason and also no honest possibility for taming our ability.

      When Aristotele wrote infinity 'actu non datur', he correctly referred to a mystic attribution of this quite plausible quality to a quantity. Archimedes stated, counting is endless. Consequently there cannot be an ultimate number omega. Nonetheless I like the number infinity, not as a useless transfinite phantasm aleph but as a fiction with - as Leibniz wrote - a fundamentum in re. Motion in a circle is unlimited as is tan(-->90°).

      Why do you not say a point is above our understanding? Presumably because we were educated to imagine the heaven located in infinite space rather than in a seemingly tangible point.

      Wilhelm Busch mocked: Who cannot imagine a point is just to lasy for that.

      Best,

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      Hello all ,

      Dear Peter ,

      hihihi yes indeed I see spheres everywhere, Oh My God I becomes crazzy, they are everywhere,

      Dear Eckard,

      Let' s take a point ,afetr 2 ,3 a triangle ,and you continue ..square,5......even the decimals..polygonisation in 2 plan is the same in 3D, the only form is the cercle and the sphere....what I say is very simple, our physicality is inside this logic and thus the number of points is finite or infinite ,have you the answer dear Eckard, this number is finite or infinite.

      I beleive what our capacity of our brain is limited too, thus the infinity appears in the deatails and the fractalisation.

      The paradis dear Eckard is in the physicality and its creations and thus we are catalyzers for that.It is not a religion or other ,no it is the universalism and its evolution.Thus our rule is not to find this impssible things but act inside this sphere.

      If our physical brain doesn't encircle this infinity, thus there is a reason in my humble opinion.

      Best Regards

      Steve