Readers' Choice: Much Ado About Nothing

[deleted]

Hi Peter,

I've never heard of anyone detecting light, in a vacuum, in which the product of frequency and wavelength are different from c. For light traveling in a vacuum, the speed of light is

[math]c = \lambda f[/math]

If this equation was not valid for light traveling in a vacuum, then astronomers would have known about it decades ago. Do you have any articles about light detected from space, in a vacuum, which does not uphold this equation.

This is what upholds length contraction.

pjackson

Oh dear Jason.

And who told you that?!

Someone quite dim with no concept of inertial frames!

Of course the equation is correct, and if you believe that 'Reflection' supports the theory that there's another universe behund each mirror, then it "upholds" length contraction. But it 'proves' nothing!

If you watch me sail my boat downwind, the waves are very long from my frame, but frequncy low. If I change inertial frames by turning to head back upwind, I find the frequncy increases but wavelength reduces. The product is always 'c'. And it's the same whatever speed I do in whatever direction.

But I don't have to contract from your our ANY viewpoint. Indeed as I get 'c' even if I go very slow, or indeed stop with respect to you and measure the passing waves, which actually logically DISproves the proposition that it 'upholds' contraction!

So be more careful just believing what mainstream pulp fiction tells you and rely more your brain! Many can't ..but I beleive you can.

So.

Back to the scenario and question in my previous post.

..Anything else that isn't simple and logical about it?

Peter

[deleted]

Dear Peter,

I am pursuing the truth wrt inertial frames and the speed of light. In fact, I bought a green laser on Ebay so that I can run some experiments. I asked you about

[math]c = \lambda f[/math]

for a reason. Your response was,"Of course the equation is correct, and if you believe that 'Reflection' supports the theory that there's another universe behund each mirror, then it "upholds" length contraction. "

On the contrary, it proves everything. It proves that all observers see the same velocity for light no matter where it comes from and no matter how fast one is moving.

The photon is a remarkable object because its frequency conserves energy via

[math]E = hf[/math]

and its wavelength conserves momentum through

[math]p = \frac{h}{\lambda}[/math]

The photon is the connection between momentum and energy. That is part of the reason why I favor the photon as that which implements the laws of physics, together with the wave function.

Water is not the right medium to describe photon. The medium has to be a froth of wave functions. Wave functions are "the group of possible solutions" to the Hamiltonian (Schrodinger) differential equation.

Water does not fit the bill. Wave functions are, inherently, waveguides for photons and for other fundamental particles. Wave functions have conservation of energy and momentum built into them. Wave functions explain why two slit diffraction experiments work. Wave functions are the reason why QM bats 1.000 (100%).

Wave functions allow you to build energy levels which can provide for gravity wells. Since wave functions only provide the framework; photons have to do the heavy lifting. When they climb these gravity energy wells, they redshift. That is why atomic clocks slow down inside gravity wells. That is why GPS satellite systems really do prove that relativity works.

This froth of wave functions is called the Higgs field. In its absence, relativity doesn't work.

Don't be light Stephen Hawking who has to destroy physics (the conservation laws) in order to brainwash his congregation of misguided physicists.

[deleted]

Hi,Professor Ted

Does the vacuum regenerate itself to fill the gaps as spacetime is pulled apart? Could a growing vacuum explain dark energy?

The answer is absolutely YES. I'm publishing a paper on the subject soon,it's about the nature of time and maybe helps other researchers like you self Professor to redefine some existing concepts in modern physics,so the understanding of nature can be more clear and close to its nature.

Thank you Professor Ted Jaxccobson

[deleted]

I hope you will post your paper here. I'd like to read it.

I agree with you that, "... the vacuum regenerates itself to fill the gaps as spacetime is pulled apart"

I would add that

1. the vacuum energy;

2. the Higgs field;

and

3. space-time;

are all manifestations of the same thing. This giant Higgs field froth of wave functions that permeates the universe.

In addition, I believe that it takes on gravitational energy levels which range from the normal flow rate of time, down to full time dilation (time stopping)/event horizon/extremely high gravity associated with black holes.

Gravity, vehicular and centrifuge acceleration (Equivalence Principle) all cause time dilation effects.

Would you care to comment?

[deleted]

Hi,Jason

The deep adea is to understand the fundamental concept of TIME as nature it self use it.One of my "postulates" is evrything physical and nonphysical acte and react equally with the fabric of SPACE, and this give a new adea about TIME as we know it (evrything is evolving in time).Time is sort of fabric of space behavior wich affect what is in it (Energy/Masse).I see the adea of SPACE-TIME can not explain the mystery of TIME,EXPANSION and CREATION of matter.

If you have any TIME to use for research,it will be good even worth to look at the nature of space not space-time.

Thnk you Mr. Jason

pjackson

Hi Jason

You said

"On the contrary, it proves everything. It proves that all observers see the same velocity for light no matter where it comes from and no matter how fast one is moving."

That's been claimed and disproved as oversimplistic before Jason. I'm disappointed about your naievity (though you're not alone). Consider this;

There is a big difference between 1. Observing an 'apparent rate of change of position' of something far away (relative your viewpoint), and 2. Measuring EM wave signals received in your own frame. - which always produces 'c'.

It is accepted for instance that if you observe 2 planets moving in opposite directions at around 0.75c they WILL appear to be doing approx 1.5c relatively.

If you are ON one of those planets. The apparent rate of change of position of the other MAY be 1.5c, but the light signals advising you of that information will cross the space between you at velocity 'c', and you will indeed measure them at 'c'.

Eckard has other examples. Like the rate of progress of light or egress of a shadow moving across a curved surface. That rate can be apparently greater than 'c' but NOTHING is actually moving faster than 'c' LOCALLY, and the information reaches you at 'c'.

There's much misunderstanduing by the dim I agree, but that's what the SR postulaes actually say. Physics is the same, including 'c', IN all inertial frames. This means it doesn't have to 'appear to be' the same when an event is not ocurring in our own frame.

The signal information reaching us (at 'c') is NOT evidence that an event in a different frame broke that law and did the 'c' of OUR frame instead!

You need to understand that before you can break away from 100 year old mainstream schoolboy physics and understand inertial frames properly. If you can't take it on board let me know as it'd mean I can do no more here.

Peter

pjackson

Hi Djarmel

It seems the vacuum ground state IS the dark energy level, but a more consistent view on your other point may be that space time is not pulled but 'pushed' apart, or expanded, BY the 'dark' energy potential/condensate from which matter condenses.

This may of course allow time to gradually speed up as the average gravitational density of the universe decreases with expansion!

Do post a link.

Peter

[deleted]

Dear Peter,

While it might look like shadows or planets move faster than c, you can't use shadows to signal because light (absence of light) still moves at the speed of light.

For the M87 event, the best I can do is to figure that the Higgs field slipped/moved or was disrupted somehow.

I've already told you that I think that shift photons can warp space-time (Higgs field) with very reasonable amounts of energy.

pjackson

Jason

Signals implying a 'rate of change of position' of something do 'c', but they do not require that apparent rate of change itself to represent 'c' or any particular speed with respect to your inertial frame.

The signals telling us the front of the shadow has crossed a planet at a rate equivalent to 3xc are sent at 'c' and arrive at 'c', after crossing the field between at 'c'. But that doesn't have to force the edge of the shadow to slow down!!

I'm really disappointed you can't see the logical distinction! Don't feel bad if you really can't, because that's precisely where most of humanity has failed so far! and precisely where the road to the solution lies.

I am on the other hand gobsmacked by Djamel, who seems to have seen it all with astonishing clarity straight away! As Bragg said, understanding physics properly isn't about new discoveries it's about changing views to give the correct perspective on what we've already discovered.

I hope you persist, but you must slow down and think more carefully!

Best of luck

Peter

[deleted]

Hi, Peter

"This may of course allow time to gradually speed up as the average gravitational density of the universe decreases with expansion!"

I like very much the idea, you just defined the time and this allow us to (after doing more effort)to merge the two pillar thiories of modern physics.

Thank you Mr.Peter

pjackson

Djarmel

"I like very much the idea, you just defined the time and this allow us to (after doing more effort)to merge the two pillar theories of modern physics."

That was genius! I'm on a mission to understand how to best explain or demonstrate this unvelievably simple and obvious unification solution, and have failed miserably so far. Just a few have seen it, and each by a different route.

You seem to have seen it from the absolute minimum of evidence, though can I assume you read the posts above? and perhaps one of the papers? Or maybe you were close or on that road anyway? I'd be really interested in your background and perception.

Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Being extract from my thesis, An inquiry into the compressibility of the universal fundamental substance:

Abstract

The attribute of compressibility has two variants, one being the shrinking of size without any change in the amount of substance, thereby causing an increase in density, while in the other, it is the shrinking of size with reduction in the amount of substance, leaving the density unchanged. We refer to the former as 'positive compressibility' and the latter as 'negative compressibility', after Lord Kelvin. In this paper, we inquire into what it means to be compressed, and from this examine the implication for a fundamental substance to have the attribute of negative compressibility. The outcome is a 'MacCullagh-Kelvin substance', a continuous medium with zero resistance to being negatively compressed (and expanded), giving it a labile property that makes it both elastic and solid. This frees the substance from the difficulty of reconciling how such a solid medium that carries transverse light waves can at the same time permit the relative motion of bodies.

You may care to read and comment HERE

Regards,

Akinbo

« Previous Page