2020 Vision. A Model of Discretion in Space by Peter A Jackson

Peter,

Thanks, for pointing out my lower-than-yours community rating! This is a surprise to me since in my essay I am presenting some truly radical and significant ideas, all clearly and convincingly argued with mathematical reasoning. The results in my essay have also experimental confirmation!

In an earlier post I included a link to the COBE cosmic background radiation spectra that shows the experimental data matching EXACTLY the theoretical blackbody spectrum obtained from Planck's Law. The FIRAS data match the curve so exactly, with error uncertainties less than the width of the blackbody curve, that it is impossible to distinguish the data from the theoretical curve.

My simple and elegant mathematical derivation of Planck's Law CAN ANSWER this remarkable experimental fact. It is the ONLY explanation to this exact fit! I in fact show that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. So clearly, what the 'sensor' is measuring will match EXACTLY what Planck's Law predicts. This goes along well also with your 'locality/reality' principle!

Peter, I know you have spend great intellectual effort showing why the speed of light is constant for all observers. I am currently working on an amazing simple mathematical proof of this that ties in with my previous results and with de Broglie matter waves! As soon as I have confirmed and double checked the math I will be posting this result. But I wanted you to have the first 'heads up' since this is an interest of yours. It has now also become an interest of mine! Thanks!

Check the link to the COBE data and let me know your thoughts. I find this fascinating! Anything that has THAT kind of accuracy in Physics MUST be a mathematical tautology! Let that be an intellectual nudge to all the physicists out there that take pride (as rightly they should!) on the high accuracy of their QED results. Are we dealing here with more mathematical tautologies? Edwin, what do you think?

The Age of Mathematical Modelings of the Universe are OVER!

Constantinos

Peter,

Yes, I might agree, but consider that wikipedia's 'recessional velocity' entry includes the statement: "The recessional velocity of a galaxy is usually calculated from the redshift observed in its emitted electromagnetic radiation. The distance to the galaxy is then estimated using Hubble's Law," and that the referenced Riess, et al. paper repeatedly refers to the distances to observed distant supernovae...

Your abstract looks very interesting - I will read it. It has previously occurred to me: if the (I agree) 'big whoosh' was spinning/rotating (don't the laws of physics demand it?), perhaps condensing matter was axially aligned, producing no antimatter!

Similarly to an accelerating universe, I think dark matter was improperly derived. I wrote a short essay last year, "Mass Distribution Characteristics Invalidate the Galaxy Rotation Problem". I'm now working on a refining revision.

Jim

Peter,

Your "true genius" categories and characterizations are not mine! I simply don't think in those terms. As I also don't think in terms of "good" and "evil", or judge other people. I don't think that any of this is really about me, or you! I love ideas, and I love to reason with ideas. I also have an insatiable need and desire to understand my world in a 'sensible' way. What I show in my essay goes a long way to satisfy this need.

Point at hand. Have you checked the amazing link showing the indistinguishable match between experimental data and Planck's Law of the blackbody spectrum? Aren't you amazed? And if so, doesn't this beg the question "why so exact?".

My essay provides just that answer! I show that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology. There is nothing more accurate in Nature than the assertion that A = A. I also like to suggest for others more knowledgeable that the exceptional accuracy of QED may also be explained in the same fashion. That this also may be concealing mathematical tautologies that result in such exactitude. A mathematical trick of cards, as it were!

Peter, you write "I feel certain the whole truth is far from yet exposed".

The Whole Truth is ALWAYS exposed and right in front of us, in our sensible experience. It's our THEORIES that get in our way of seeing it!

Peter, I believe in 100% inspiration and 0% perspiration. If it doesn't 'make sense', I don't bother!

Constantinos

"My essay provides just that answer! I show that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology. There is nothing more accurate in Nature than the assertion that A = A. I also like to suggest for others more knowledgeable that the exceptional accuracy of QED may also be explained in the same fashion. That this also may be concealing mathematical tautologies that result in such exactitude. A mathematical trick of cards, as it were!"

Constantinos,

I am inclined to agree with you: any very high degree of accuracy smells like "math. truism".

But what should all this imply concerning the nature of physical theories? It may mean, as I suggest in my essay, that science should not be about the numeric truisms but about the *structural* descriptions of "reality", which would be in line with the biological mechanisms of perception.

Constantinos,

Since you ask my opinion, I will say that the data are very impressive and your work is very impressive.

What I do not necessarily agree with is your interpretation. As I have already addressed this above in the series of comments beginning with: "Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 22:38 GMT" I don't think the details should be repeated here.

I believe that you have some confusion about what I have done, and I am somewhat confused about your beliefs, despite that you have explained them to me several times.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter,

I read your essay. As far as we know, even in deepest space, there is no place with a complete vacuum. The index of refraction, n, will never be exactly 1 and there will always an effect of the momentum frame of the material be it solid, liquid, gas or plasma. But the index of refraction does change with frequency of electro-magnetic radiation, just look at a rainbow. Over the whole EM spectrum, the index of refraction (assuming you can find something that refracts gamma rays) changes wildly for any given material and can even be stated as complex for a plasma in radio frequency. You have a good point, for c, we have assumed an ideal that does not exactly exist.

Jeff

Constantinos,

I do not "know" what you think, in fact I am somewhat confused about what you think, despite your efforts to explain it. I also believe that you are somewhat confused about what I have done.

You state: "Your C-field that is defined by variations of Maxwell's equations is a 'mathematical model' of the Universe. A better question would be "Why are there Maxwell's equations"? Do you believe Maxwell's equations came from God? It's human hubris to think that God would be so preoccupied! Edwin, I have come to doubt everything! I don't believe in elementary particles and I don't believe in immutable Universal Laws of Nature, ready made to be discovered by men. But I do believe in Mathematics! Just as I deeply and profoundly understand its limitations!"

I derived my model of the universe as I understand it over a year before I found out that Maxwell had come close to the same results 150 years ago. Today I use Maxwell's equations (which are not the same as my equations) for the simple reason that so many people have studied Maxwell's equations that they can immediately understand many things by analogy, despite the fact that Maxwell's electromagnetic equations are linear and the fields do not interact with themselves, whereas my C-field equations are non-linear in the Yang-Mills sense and lead to quite different results.

Since you have expended quite a few words and I am still confused, I doubt that it is worth it to try to explain my beliefs. I have written several books in that mode if you wish to understand my beliefs. From what you say above, you do not understand me any better than I understand you.

But that is not a problem. What you believe is not really my concern, as I have my own set of beliefs that may or may not overlap you but are certainly not identical to yours. Nor does what you believe have any bearing on my theory.

As for Planck's constant, I derive it immediately from my Master equation, long before I derive the Maxwell or the C-field equations. The fact that my derivation is very different from your, contradicts your statement that "There is no explanation of this other than the one I offer, and it also (I believe) leads to a different conclusion as to the nature of Planck's constant.

I do not confess to know what your interpretation is exactly, and every time you explain it I get a little more confused. I certainly can accept that 'eta' is your 'undefined' starting point. In my previous essay I chose the gravity field and consciousness as the 'undefined' and ultimately mysterious basis of my theory. All theories start with some axiom or other aspect that must simply be accepted.

None of this implies that I do not like your results. I like your results very much, I am just not sure I buy your interpretation of your results, perhaps due to my lack of understanding.

I do appreciate your attempts to explain to me.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Lev,

I agree that current scientific theories leave out much (most) from people's lives and experiences. More than what I say in my essay, I do believe that underlying everything is the same process of 'creating' that unifies our experiences - whether these be in our personal lives, in physics, politics or biology. A Theory of Everything! I sense this is what you may also be saying in your essay, though I have not read it to be sure.

Great ideas can be found in anything and by anyone. And in unexpected ways! The belief that physics is such a specialized discipline that only 'experts' can know its 'truth' only shows how far afield physics has veered from life and what sustains life! From Creation, in other words!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Peter,

Your paper online regarding Helical CMBR Asymmetry, raises many fascinating points. Should I assume that the basis of the galactic recycle period for quasars is the age of stars in the galactic thin disk vs the age of stars in the galactic halo. I count something like 8-9 billion years between stars in each realm in the MW. Your recycle period only applies to galaxies and is repeated? Steinhardt in "Endless Universe" estimates the universe recycles in a trillion years.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Dear Edwin,

We are here to promote the Truth of Reason and the Reason for Truth. I am sure I don't have the complete picture of your view of Reality. So let's try again. I'll take one bit at a time and ask that you confirm or critic my understanding.

You write, "I derived my model of the universe as I understand it over a year before I found out that Maxwell had come close to the same results 150 years ago."

Do you believe in 'models of the universe'? By that I mean, mathematical models that describe 'what is' the universe and how it behaves. My view is that we cannot know 'what is' but can only know our measurements of 'what is'.

You write, "... your statement that "There is no explanation of this other than the one I offer..."

I am not sure which of my statements you are quoting here. The only thing that comes to my mind is possibly my explanation as to why the experimental measurements of blackbody radiation match perfectly the theoretical values given by Planck's Law. If this is what you mean, than what other explanation is there? I admit I may just be unaware of any other. But I feel very convinced by the explanation I offer: That Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. Thus, 'measurement' and 'theory' are identical, as A = A.

To my quote,

"If I am not mistaken, your C-field comes from modifications to Maxwell's equations. Thus, the properties of the C-field are already contained in the equations that gave rise to it. Though you take this C-field as 'primordial', its 'properties' don't flow out of it, but from the equations you use to define it!"

... on your March 2 post you responded, "I suppose you could say that."

Perhaps you didn't mean that. If not, how are the properties of the C-field acquired? And if they are acquired by your GEM equation, doesn't the GEM equation describe 'what is' and is immutable and universal law? In my humble opinion, there are no universal laws! Only laws that are man-made descriptions of some regularity in nature that has evolved but that could also not be.

Now I know this is a very radical and provocative view. But we witness such Truth in every other domain of our experience. Why should Nature be any different?

O.K. I'm being 'metaphysical'. Totally inappropriate! My bad!

Edwin, you write " I like your results very much, I am just not sure I buy your interpretation of your results"

Now that I like very much! And it compels me to ask 'what interpretations of mine' you do not buy? If these are the 'metaphysical' above then no harm discarding these and keeping to the results you like.

Best regards,

Constantinos

Peter,

Thanks for your comment! We have more in common than we believe. Including the 'cross to bear'. I too feel an obligation to deliver this 'message' to those that have the resources (both physical and intellectual) to make best use of it. And I too want to move on to others interests (and I have many) once the 'message' is delivered. If I can get this essay to the 'panel of generals' to consider, I will feel totally 'mission accomplished'!

Concerning your DFM, this has always puzzled me. But I am beginning to see how it may fit to my views and results. What I don't quite accept is that these 'discrete fields' are existing and centered around 'particles'. Rather, my view is that energy propagates continuously through a medium (I think many of us now accept this - I call it eta, Edwin calls it C-field, others have called it ether - what ever). But how that physically occurs is by 'accumulation/manifestation', as energy first accumulates to reach an equilibrium level locally than it manifests in space as having moved. This process may be seen as 'continuous/discrete'. As your DFM! With this view, there is no need to talk about already existing 'particles' and 'fields' with boundaries formed of ???? plasma??? that results in refraction. It's your 'compartmentalization' of space into distinct discrete fields/boundaries that has been giving me problems. But I think this view I am now forming (not complete yet) may help me over this.

Peter, I have embarked on this intellectual journey for no other reason than my commitment and passion for Truth and Reason. What ever the consequences, I am prepared to accept. I don't believe in 'afterlife'. But I could have a glass of ouzo with you at some Aegean island and laugh at the whole enterprise of physics!

Have fun! As Ray Munroe often admonishes us ...

Kostas

Peter,

I've read your paper, "Helical CMBR Asymmetry, Pre-Big Bang State, Dark Matter and the Axis of Evil".

To the extent that the discrete 'curvatures' of spacetimes of neighboring galaxies are independent, i.e. not interacting, they represent discrete fields. That intergalactic spacetime is expanding whereas discretely localized gravitationally bound regions of space are not provides some indication of the extent of which, universally, spacetime is localized into discrete gravitational fields. It seems to be, on whole, a minority. I suggest that it is a kinetic energy permeating intergalactic spacetime producing the diminishing expansion of the universe that is the principal agent producing the redshift of intergalactic light, simply by physically expanding the linear distance between waves as they propagate.

I'm afraid I cannot see any application of your hypothesis that might be applicable to any alternative interpretation of SNe Ia observational studies. For that I still abide by my previously stated assertion of improper observational perspective.

Jim