Kostas

Yes I read your link before I replied. Did you read mine? John m just posted an excellent link on the blogs showing most of the issue I have, you must read it; http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

Step back and consider what the proof means physically, and what it's implications are. That's what's important. ...I'll explain.

If you found two different but equally brilliant tautologies or maths truisms, one leading to no physical implications, one saving the world or feeding all the starving, I consider the latter to be 'of more value' to humankind, i.e. of more real importance to US.

If, as you say, you may be happy to just find the solution, then not do the work to explain it to anyone, forget it and go looking for a way to drink more ouzo without getting a hangover, my personal view would be you'd not then be a genius but a worthless old fool.

I agree the highest point of personal pleasure is in the eureka moment, but to leave it at that is very selfish, as members of the human race that should not be held in high esteem (though I agree it is too often!).

Please do read my own linked paper and John's important link and come back with a broader overview of why the curve is the shape it is and so smooth, and if it proves only a 'big bang' and increasing as claimed. And what about 'last scattering'!!

Peter

    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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #134

    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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #136

    Peter,

    Reading those papers was 100% perspiration and 0% inspiration. The nebulae photos did provide some reprieve, however. But did you really have to lay that guilt trip on me? People are hungry because the world is run on egofuels! Not because I seek to know!

    You write, "Step back and consider what the proof means physically,"

    What proof? My proof showing that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology? Although this result does explain the indistinguishable nature between theory and experimental fact, it has nothing to do with the Big Bank! In fact, I don't believe in the Big Bank! Actually, I don't believe in much of anything! That's what it means to be a free thinker!

    Peter, my participation in these blogs and in this contest shows a little of my commitment to get the truth out to the world! If I have just a little to do with bringing physics back to 'physical realism' and away from QM weirdness -- to "A World Without Quanta" -- I would feel deeply gratified! Demystifying people from QM-mysticism has profound physical consequences in their lives!

    Constantinos

    • [deleted]

    • Post #137

    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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #139

    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

    Kostas

    Sorry about the guilt trip. I do understand, But I feel like I have a cross to bear, which I just want to pass over to 'physics' to do with what it will so I can get on with my life. It solves a whole lot more problems than seen a first glance, meaning massive advances in physics, but 4 of 5 can't seem to do the conceptual dynamic relationships needed to see it anyway! So what do I do, just tut tut and go off sailing? Help me! Actually I've just read you photoelectric paper, which I do see the brilliance of, and it does support the DFM model. Will anyone notice that too? Perhaps we'll meet in the life after death and laugh about how pointless it all was!

    Peter

      Jeffrey

      Thanks for that. You are spot on about EM waves and rainbows. I did a paper on harmonic refraction showing how they 'reverse' just outside our visible range - bizarre but true, and derived the reason. It sums up the state of science that the specialist optics pub's didn't consider it 'new discovery' based as it only better organised and explained recent discoveries, ..and mainstream general PR journals considered it too far way from the current paradigm to print!!! What chance does the human race stand!? I don't know if you considered the implications of the simple DFM solution but they are massive! As well as CSL it actually leads to resolving, Flyby, Pioneer, Voyager, Lensing, Twins, Red shift, Expansion, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Galactic evolution, Re-ionisation, Circular polarisation, Twin slits, Lithium 7 shortage, axis of Evil Quadrupolar asymmetry, Black Holes, Big Bang and most of Quantum Gravity. But of course it's considered 'totally ridiculous' that the Holy Grail really does exist so the blinkers go on and it's ignored as it's too simple!

      Gamma rays can be scattered, which means can be refracted, so as well as explaining inertial frames qualatatively the refraction also quantatively matches SR and GR quite precisely. As it waddles, quacks and is really nice roast with orange I'm having it for lunch whether the 'better informed' can yet see it's a duck or not.

      To be absolutely clear; 'c' is fine, (to 2nd approximation, and subject to observer frame), as are the postulates of SR, but only locally. We just haven't understood inertial frames due to our belief that points, lines and mathematical conclusions are real without 'renormalisation'. It simply changes on demand to be 'c' everywhere. It's entirely logical, and when we start looking around it's also so obvious.

      Thanks and congrats for being one of the 1 in 5 with the conceptual brain power to see it. How on earth do we convince the rest?

      Best wishes

      Peter

        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

        • [deleted]

        • Post #143

        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

        Jim

        Steinhardt!?.. dammit! Well they do say there's "nothing new under the.. sun?" ..and I thought universe recycling was a completely new idea (/discovery)! Well I darn hope galaxy recycling is. Actually I'm pretty sure it'll prove not to be. I must look him up, I assume 'Endless Universe' is a book.

        The 5Bn yrs or so to our next recycling is a straight 'off the cuff' guess, ('first approximation') but from 30 years of research, and making allowances for some errors and wrong assumptions in the odd excessive star age claims. It meets the evidence best, and also happens to co-incide with estimated 'lights out' time for the sun in about 5bn years, so seems the right time to plan a bit of a kip.

        The problem is stars are still being formed, both in the Halo, due to physical field perturbation and condensation, and at the active galactic core (toroid SMBH) as it builds up energy. The 'brightness' ratings and Gaussian distribution maths etc. are therefore all a bit irrelevant as it's 'a bit more technical' than we've imagined. It's also amazing what a range of different helical jet patterns there are. Beautiful and totally random.

        I think I said I think we're at about half life at present, so have to get on with physics a bit so we can build the 'ark' maybe ride the jet if needed come bale out time. I was in a 140mph jet stream back from the Caribbean last week and I can tell you it was pretty bumpy, though the different (discrete) inertial field got us in to London almost an hour early!

        And do you know what? I bet the EM waves through the wiring didn't change speed and light went through the cabin at 'c' plus V1 (plane) plus V2 (jet stream) for the guy measuring it from the boats we flew over. (I kept spilling my beer as the plane contracted each time! -lol). Why the hell are the old guys here still using decrepit 100 year old nonsense physics when there's a more logical and fully consistent answer? It beggars belief. In fact that's all it is,; 'belief.'. What do you think the Pope thinks?

        Best wishes

        Peter

          Kostas

          Don't worry, It's still only down to about 1 person in 5 able to comprehend it.

          No wonder you're struggling; you say "What I don't quite accept is that these 'discrete fields' are existing and centered around 'particles'"

          They're not. If a particle is at rest it is part of the background field. Remember the CERN stuff I sent you, Only once it moves does the photo-electron plasma cloud start to propagate (now more trendily called 'virtual electrons'). The cloud is related to the EM field as another one then also builds up in the are (and rest frame)of the magnets. The particles emit the synchrotron radiation (as the UK Diamond light source)

          The field appears only when it'd NEEDED, at at just the frequency required for the wave particle interaction to convert EM wave speed to 'c' within the cloud. It's so simple and obvious when you look, it's painful!!

          Brian Ridley described it very well in 'Space and Time and Things' but never quite worked it out. Virtually all CERN work is about getting RID of the darn parasitic stuff that wastes so much power, obstructing the search for dark matter!!! Again, it beggars belief! It's entirely consistent with your PE effect work, and yes, they condense from the condensate of C field.

          Have a look at the 'train' scenario I posted for Tom, it's difficult to see logic with one's head in the sand but at least you should see it OK. Let me know if you struggle with it at all.

          Very best wishes.

          Peter

          Peter,

          It is a book, Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang by Steinhardt and Turok.

          "Why the hell are the old guys here still using decrepit 100 year old nonsense physics when there's a more logical and fully consistent answer? It beggars belief. In fact that's all it is,; 'belief.'."

          I am an old guy but only recently got into cosmology, since retiring.

          In all popular writing that I see about UFO engineering,few seem to apply the time differentials you mention regarding your flight. The doubters seem to think it takes years to reach a destination, for example, over 20 to travel from Gliese 581G, not even thinking about near light-speed travel.

          I think we have been visited since ancient times. Does that make me a nut?

          Jim Hoover

          Constantinos,

          You say: "Demystifying people from QM-mysticism has profound physical consequences in their lives!"

          Amen to that.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          • [deleted]

          • Post #148

          Peter,

          Scattering does not always lead to refraction. In scattering, photon energy is lost, but the velocity remains the same. In refraction the velocity of EM radiation is changed, but energy is conserved. In stellar cores, the density might be high enough to refract gamma rays.

          This is a small point. The larger point is inertial frames might not be truly independent. If inertial frames are not independent then "c" might be local and something could violate local "c" and not effect "true" c (which might not be knowable). I look at things a different way, but this is something to think about.

          Jeff

          Dear Peter,

          Thank you for your kind remarks on my essay. I have enjoyed reading your essay (and the nice pictures too!) and the lively discussion in the posts above. The key impression I came away with from your essay is that we agree that `reality' has strongly intermingled digital and analog aspects. I am very sympathetic to the Block Universe concept, at some fundamental level. It will be great to see the development of your ideas into a mathematical framework [physicists as you agree feel more at home when nice ideas are turned into a quantitative scheme :-)].

          Best wishes,

          Tejinder

          Hi, Peter

          Thank you for directing me to your paper, which I read with great interest. Thanks also for your appreciation of my own, which is on a completely different level. Your work is over my head, so there is not much response I can offer technically. Your general point that "focusing on duality we may miss more conceptual logic" seems well taken. Wave-particle duality teaches us that these are relative states or descriptions, not absolute ontological categories. Your general framework is very interesting, in a similar spirit to the work of Haisch and Rueda (your reference [20]). Your approach seems an encouraging example of the simple fact that in spite of orthodoxy unresolved fundamental questions do not go away, but continue to resurface in new creative thought.

          Very best wishes,

          Dan

          Many thanks Dan

          I've posted on your site with an Einstein based logical analysis, showing we'd only have to change one of our assumptions to remove the paradoxes and show SR driven by a quantum mechanism.

          Peter