(Copied from Rays SuperString - response to excellent post above)

Ray

That looks absolutely spot on to me, I think it's a done deal. Some may accuse you of foolishly missing Buriden's ass, but as two fall out of the equation anyway you end up with SUSY.

The only issue is it's now precisely equivalent to the theory in Tommy Gilbertson's essay! How fast are your publishers?

Having fun

Peter

Arjen

Great to hear from you. Hope you'll be Dr D soon.

Time seems to transform very simply in the DFM. (Actually that's an assumption as I haven't thought much about the details til now, but it's a good test so here goes); Before consideration of whether or not oscillation rate of a clock somewhere else changes if YOU 'move', or vice versa;

If you accelerate with your clock it reads the same. You're observing it from the only 'valid' frame, the SAME one (as noted above).

Simply; If a clock accelerates away from you it slows down. By the time it's 30,000m away it's a second slow!

If it comes back towards you it speeds up again! (the time dilates as the light blue shifts). If I'm right, when it arrives back it tells the right time again.

If it flies on past you? - I think you can guess!

There are some good ref's and a paper by me on GPS linkable from the Ref's. There's a lot of misunderstanding, the best ones are probably from NASA's Dan Gezari. http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818v2 (2009) I think if we sent 2 round the globe they read the same on return. (the full 'clocks round the globe' story is one physics needs to forget).

If we just consider the light from the clock face (or digits) physics IS simple! like the man said. If you think about it, time not only dilates but expands. (diffraction dilates it in the plasma anyway of course, and it will vary subject to observer vector in the CMBR rest frame - or gas). That gives Einstein lensing/Shapiro delay.

I hope that doesn't prove to be a load of cods when I compute it tonight!

There IS an interesting take on contraction, (and expansion) kind of to do with Doppler shifting loosely bound mass. Can I get you on the case with that? Let me know if you can work it our from this simple video; http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.htm

Very best wishes

Peter

Peter,

I wasn't thinking in terms of including a pipe, although that is more realistic than just speaking theoretically. Thank you for your reply. I am still thinking things through. Your know, even though we both say that the speed of light varies, our explanations are very different. But, you are doing very well. Good luck.

With regard to mathematics, I have seen some things said that I didn't agree with while I perused the essays. So, I posted this remark in my own forum:

"As I read through some essays, I find the basis of math to be misrepresented. Mathematics is not abstract. It is a collection of shortcuts for counting. That which is being counted may or may not be an abstraction, but counting is not an abstraction.

Another point: Calculus is not based upon instantaneous anything. I saw it said in a forum that "Caculus is based upon instantaneous speed." So, I wish to affirm that calculus is based upon the right triangle. It is not based upon a dot."

You know I am not an expert. I am not a physicist. My opinion is that Einstein was a valuable intellect, but, not correct about some of the most important conclusions. I think, he is most responsible for opening the theoretical door so that theory is no longer earthbound, but, has become a race into theory heaven. Imagination rules. The danger, from my point of view, is that even purely imaginative speculation can succeed in producing successful predictions about reality. The reason is that all professionally developed theory has to rely upon patterns in empirical evidence. Those patterns can be extrapolated to suggest predictions. The theoretical interpretations that are attached to the meanings of those patterns can be wrong and yet the patterns can still be used for successful extrapolations.

Best wishes for your efforts.

James

p.s. - Ed and Peter might want to read B N Sreenath's essay. Sreenath tries to build an equation for Quantum Gravity - in similar fashion to Ed's Master Equation. Sreenath's description of equivalence is similar to Peter's (acceleration comes in discrete energy packets - each of these packets would represent a different inertial frame and a different bus in Peter's essay and analogies - if I understand them correctly...).

Have Fun!

Peter,

In reference to the argument put forth by Ray Munroe in Tom's forum that my derivation of Planck's Law (without using energy quanta) in my essay is circular ...

Here is Ray's argument! Judge which argument is 'circular'!

1)Planck's Law is derived using 'energy quanta'

2)Energy quanta is a fact of Nature

3)Ragazas' derivation of Planck's Law does not use energy quanta

4)Therefore, Ragazas' derivation of Planck's Law must have used energy quanta.

This is the kind of 'logic' that characterizes 'metaphysical belief'.

Good luck to all heretics!

Constantinos

P.S. I am about to post a paper that mathematically proves the following proposition, using the same ideas in my essay: IF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT, THEN LIGHT IS A WAVE.

Dan

FANTASTIC! Many thanks, that confirms an effective prediction of the Discrete Field Model, discussed in my Chromatic Dispersion Paper (about harmonics, Huygens Principle and why rainbows invert when just out of our visible wave band. Seemingly bizarre but true. Their method didn't allow transmission speed to be easily checked, which allows me to also FURTHER PREDICT HERE effective superconductivity - or superluminal phase velocity of the red shifted waves within the matrix (subject to the matrix speed, which I haven't read about yet).

I'm also not surprised to see yet more anticipatory plagiarism, it's seemed rife ever since I mislaid Matti's 'Wells' machine -sorry Matti. Some Russian chap first predicted something similar in the 1960's! Someone will be telling me next that George Stokes got his knighthood for predicting something like the DFM in the mid 1900's!

Peter

Constantinos

I agree. That definitely sound a little inverse! I did see Ray Munro's post but didn't quite follow the logic. I hope you're discussing it direct - I'll keep tabs. It certainly doesn't conflict with Rays latest theory, which seems to proves equivalent to Tommy Gilbertson's. I think they're in a race to publish!

Your latest proof is even more interesting, as the mathematical equivalent and proof to the pure logic base of the DFM. When and where can we see it? Have a chat with Chistian Corda? or use Phil Gibbs well run viXra preprint archive. But of course that's for 'long range' em energy transmission, and no-one can stop your waves getting together in bunches to cause local mayhem and confusion. Again it's consistent with my CD paper (see reply to Dan). Now a field is allowed the long range model of the photon as a 'particle' is of course redundant. I hope you get in the top 35 as it does need studying.

Have you also checked stochastic Levy distribution curves, which would naturally be similar. In spectroscopy this is equivalent to the Van der Waals profile of the frequency variable case.

I think we've hit the heart of the essay subject, tightly defining when matter condenses; a phase transition by and for interaction, i.e. change. Now just the last 90% of the answer to clear up! This includes what to call the (dis)continuum condensate if it's not ether. Though as Edwin's hit the front we may be sticking with 'C field'!

Best of luck squeezing in. I agree you deserve to and it would be a massive shame if you didn't.

Peter

    Dear Peter,

    I reread Sreenath's essay yesterday. I also need to reread your essay, but think I see some similarities between your perspectives.

    Tommy Gilbertson's essay? The only obvious similarities that Tommy and I have are:

    1) we believe in having fun! and

    2) I could explain the Soul or Consciousness in terms of self-similar scales and many Universes all in communication with each other (perhaps via tachyons that travel faster than the speed of light, and communicate action-at-a-distance phenomena). Perhaps the Dream is our Soul's awareness of alternate realities and alternate scales. Perhaps the Soul itself has a tachyonic nature (what if the Soul is the Kramers-Kronig transform of our physical selves?). But I don't publish stuff like that. I already use too many pentagrams - if I started talking about Souls and Dreams, then I would probably be classified as a "witchdoctor"...

    Dear Peter and Constantinos,

    I will keep this short because I don't think it is appropriate to monopolize Peter's thread with my little disagreement with Constantinos.

    Constantinos' Properties of Exponentials assumes (I suspect accidentally) the same "fundamental" form as Bose's Partition function (derived in the 1920's). Bose was also studying Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law, so it is no wonder that they (Constantinos and Bose) agree on the form of their equations and their agreement with experimental data.

    My point is that this Bose Partition function IS FUNDAMENTAL TO BOSONS. Photons are bosons, and therefore Constantinos is legit using this for photons. BUT, fermions obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, have a fundamentally different type of symmetry from bosons (now I'm reverting back to the importance of Supersymmetry in handling these two distinct and disjoint symmetries in a unified manner) and cannot be analyzed with Planck's Law.

    Planck's Law is great for studying photons, but unless all is photons (isn't that Jason Wolfe's claim?), you cannot use Planck's Law universally as your Rosetta stone.

    Have Fun!

    Dr. Cosmic Ray

    Dear Peter

    I did not intend to message here but I wish to congratulate you and thank you. I had seen something but was not sure what. The power and implications hit me in thinking it through this morning. It was such an enlightening.

    You have explained the Einstein said of C and the laws of physics constant IN each frame. If we go there that is what we find, if we do not we will not. Why are you not ahead in this contest by 100 years? They have not yet read and understood your words. This is a new start of science.

    I wish you well and all success, which I know you must have, and thank you.

    Petra

    Petra

    Thank you for your kind words, yes, it should indeed be a re-start for science, and hopefully not take another 100 years. But these are early days, and you have vision to have seen it before most, It fills me with pleasure that you have.

    Please do help by spreading the word if you are in a position to dare.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Petra, and ALL

    To find HOW you understood it was valuable. To expand; Tom has not yet 'taken on' Georgina's thesis in the 'Time Travel' Blog, so I interceded with this; It includes the logical analysis of the key issue, with thanks to Akira for confirming correct application.

    "Tom,

    Would you agree Einstein said, in the SR Postulates, that - The speed of light C and the laws of physics are the same IN all inertial frames. ?

    If so, there are two ways to consider that.

    1) That if we 'go to' and are 'moving with' or at rest 'with respect to' each inertial frame (simply 'condition of motion') we will find the postulates correct.

    The second is;

    2) That we don't need to bother to go there, to get IN each inertial frame to find out as we can observe it from any one of infinitely many other inertial frames and expect our measurements to be correct and the postulates to still apply to our observations.

    What I, and I believe Georgina, suggest is that we suffered a failure of conceptual logic and assumed both must be true when perhaps only 1) was true, in which case we may expect to see c plus v in our 'observed' reality, and have to learn how to use mathematics to subtract the v to get the 'real' result. i.e. No LT, paradoxes or anomalies. (the LT was a 'fudge' to patch over the gaping hole in our logic)

    In logic, Galilean Relativity was extended 'syntatically', which adds assumptions and freely increases predictions by allowing in contradictions. If we try to rely an axioms to suppress original axioms validity is lost. Logic demands monotonicity. Our over reliance on maths and loss of focus on logic allowed us to assume No 2) above was also true. That assumption cannot possibly be logically valid.

    In this case, and with the only other logic possible, that of discrete 'body's or fields, as reference frames, physics becomes far simpler, as Einstein, Feynman and others predicted it would be when the answer was found.

    Where on Ear... .. ...Vulcan was Mr Spock when we needed him!?

    Peter

      Dear Ray,

      I see you are not only repeating the same arguments as I have addressed before, but you are also repeating the same posts that you have in other forums. This puts me in the uncomfortable position of having to pick up after your droppings here and there.

      Let me try once again:

      1)The derivation of Planck's Law in my essay does not depend on any physical properties of bosons, fermions or anything else in fact. It is a purely mathematical tautology. Think of it like the Pythagorean Theorem.

      2)What Planck's Law says (as is derived in my essay) is that if we know ΔE and if we know Eav over an interval [t0 , t], then using the formula we can exactly calculate E0 .

      Now Ray, the E and t in all this can be anything! The application of this to Physics is for E to be energy and t to be time. Then the formula describes the relationship between E0 , and the energy ΔE absorbed at an average energy Eav .

      In other words, Planck's Formula is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. This, I argue explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is so indistinguishable from the theoretical curve obtained from Planck's Law.

      Everything in my essay can be easily understood using simple mathematics and clear logic. But you can always muddle the arguments by looking at this through the prison of your theories. I am not in a position (not professional enough) to "analyze this" !

      But if you want to describe what I actually say, please do it accurately and don't leave misleading comments in other forums.

      Constantinos

      Hi Constantinos and Peter,

      Truce!

      I don't want a war with my friends. I made comments about Constantinos where they had already started (above, Peter said he didn't see my point). I have differences with both Constantinos' and Edwin's ideas, but I'm not going to push the point to where I look like a jerk.

      Have Fun!

      Dr. Cosmic Ray

      Seconds out...

      Ray,

      I'm unable to comment on assumptions and prefer not to on conventions, but do see it as a matter mainly of those two (as usual) causing contention. In fact my statement re logic in my post below seems to apply. If we can chose our assumptions we can prove or disprove anything we wish. Rigour is using sets of different assumptions, and create a results matrix. This makes the test 2 way, prevents semantics and we can then ensure the correct monotonicity. (I don't criticise you for fighting your corner,- but this also seems to apply your conversation with Edwin). It has become clear to me that Physics as a whole may not have applied logic rigorously enough, including to maths.

      Constantinos

      I read your paper. My understanding was limited because the numbers and symbols outnumbered the words! I'm sure your sums are fine! I'd still like to find the logic of why it must comply with Erwin S's equation, and if there is any reason the waves can't gang up to ping detectors as bundles, which is after all what I guess 90% or people agree photons are anyway. Do check & get back to me re the Van de Waal profile etc.

      I hope you both may respond to my simple logical analysis below re SR, which may put us all on the right planet in the right universe, and help clarify all the detailed argument arising from spending so long with Dodgesons' creation on the wrong one!

      Best wishes

      Peter

      PS Ray. Yes read and messaged Sreenath, thanks, Some consistency and interesting thinking, but a 'scale' down in the process and not really my department. I do conceptual logic and empiricism! I think of it as teamwork.

      Dear Peter Jackson,

      I went thro' your intriguing essay often and tried to see how you have succeeded in facing the requirements of the essay contest.Although you have tried from an odd angle,finally you have not come to any conclusion.

      In the photograph,I saw high speed gas gushing away from the blast (or explosion?) place and it could be as a result of shock wave emanating from collision between two white-dwarfs or plsma emitted form a black-hole or a pulsar or even a white-dwarf.The shape of the gas curve emitted in all such cases would be almost the same.

      If you are too good at maths,I will give ideas on how to solve problems related to black-holes.

      Best regards and good luck in the competition.

      Sreenath B N.

        Peter,

        You just broke 200 comments and are 'spreading light' everywhere. Who would have thought that 100 year old special relativity could be so divisive.

        I like the way you clarify points 1 and 2 above. The issue of 'in the frame' or 'looking at the frame' certainly deserves more attention.

        It may be just that I am more engaged in this contest, but it seems to me that there are more original and worthwhile perspectives appearing than in previous contests. Certainly a lot of insights floating around. Many of these essays deserve re-reading more than once.

        And there really has developed a sense of community, although there are, as in most communities, two sides of the track.

        I appreciate that you, and Willard's early remarks, have caused me to re-think aspects of SR and to apply the C-field equation to photons. Thanks.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Edwin

        Many thanks. It's simply rewarding to see the concept of how to remove the well veiled wrong assumption of 100 years ago understood at last, by a steadily growing few with the right conceptual skills at least.

        What a roller coaster ride! I'm trying to run my practice, family and boat.. but I tell myself it will be worth it to get the solution seen, and off and running. How could I not? Your support is well appreciated and I'm glad if I've helped facilitate and falsify your own model. I too was pleased and surprised that logic is creeping back into physics with some excellent consistent essays.

        Much work will need to be done defining the qualities and properties of the field once we are allowed to see it again!

        I hope we may keep working together on this to the benefit of all, though for me it is not my day job!

        Very best of luck.

        Peter