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

      Peter,

      Thank you for your nice comment on my essay!

      Regarding your essay: I think the observations you have taken the time to include are very important and are unfortunately overlooked most of the time. For example: what is really going on from observer O's viewpoint using a tyndall effect.

      Regarding your step-by-step fate of photon(s) when changing from vacuum to air, plasma glass, etc.. I wonder if anyone has applied this thinking to the Michelson-Morley experiment?? On the surface one might think effects would cancel anyway because the reflection devices are at both ends of the interferometer, but the fact that "new" photons are replacing old ones during the journey may have an impact.

      I hope we can all keep a conversation going even after the contest ends.

      Best of luck - Chris

        Sreenath B N

        Thank you for reading it. You said I come to no 'conclusion'. Hmmm. Perhaps my English understatement Sreenath, I am explaining what may be a paradigm moving discovery, (which I fear you may have missed!) which also shows two distinct solutions;

        1) The 'continuous' condensate must become discrete (ions) to implement change, and

        2) Space itself is divided into discrete 'blocks' or perhaps 'causal sets' of volume surrounding condensed matter and limited by diffractive boundaries.

        So without either one, the other could not exist. So not only is nature both, but I show how and why, which unveils the problem and derives SR via a quantum mechanism. Did you read the logical analysis in the post above here?

        you must be able to manipulate multiple dynamic spaces and diffracting waves in your mind to make it intuitive, which it quickly then becomes. It is difficult! If it was easy it would have been seen 100 years ago. And then thinking through the implications... they are substantial!

        I hope you have another go.

        Or once you are ready, look at the quite stunning logical conclusions in the short preprint here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

        The Photograph? - The previous analysis is (I believe) incomplete. It is a Quasar, with just the 'approaching' jet visible as the receding jet is red shifted to radio frequencies (but both jet heads are visible. A Quasar is a toroid black hole (see the other paper for a photo of another) with the jets perpendicular to the 'disk' (as our own smbh). The gravity is so intense there is much lensing or 'microlensing'. If you look around the source of the jet you will see lensed (enlarged and curved) light from stars behind, outlining the toroid curvature. It is rather large! M87's jets are many millions of light years long.

        I feel we must better use observation and empirical evidence to support theory wherever we can.

        Peter

        Dear Peter,

        thanks for your kind comment. If I understand well, you propose in your well-written essay a mechanism based on the plasma wind, by which relativity emerges from quantum mechanics and optics. The "standard" relativity has been derived from electromagnetism as well, more specifically from the invariance properties of Maxwell's equations - which led to the Lorentz transformations and the Minkowski spacetime. Possibly there may be an experiment, at least a "Gedanken" one, which can exhibit differences between the predictions of your explanation and those of the "standard" SR. I think that such differences may appear if the light travels through large regions of small density of the plasma.

        Best regards,

        Cristi

          Dear Peter,

          Nothing in my essay or in my latest posts contradict any of your ideas - namely "locality/reality" as the basis of the constancy of the speed of light, and DFM as the basis for propagation of light. But these latest results, in my humble opinion, do bring clarity and light to what has in the past been mystifying.

          Among the most mystifying of physical ideas that date back to Einstein's work is the (PH) Photon Hypothesis (which makes any intuitive physical explanation of the double-slit experiment, for example, incomprehensible even to the likes of Feynman) and de Broglie's 'matter waves' hypothesis that were incorporated into Schroedinger's equation and into QM. These were plainly assumptions.

          In my first new post, "What is the Matter with de Broglie Waves?" I am able to derive the de Broglie equations following and extending previous work, and show how these can be more intuitively understood. This demystifies the de Broglie 'matter'. Furthermore, this formulation in my post now fully justifies the 'exponential of time' that I used for the local representation of energy that leads to a very elegant mathematical derivation of Planck's Law. This I had assumed (with ample mathematical reasons and arguments for that assumption).

          In the second post, "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave", I give a very simple and equally elegant mathematical proof that is we take the speed of light to be constant, then it must be true that light propagates as a wave. Thus, one of Einstein's major hypothesis (CSL) that leads to Relativity contradicts another major hypothesis (PH) that leads to QM.

          This is big! This is not "photons".

          Constantinos

          Chris

          Thanks, pressed wrong button and long detailed post lost! Precee;

          Yes. Thanks, Brilliant; Mirrors reflect light at same speed as incident light ref incident medium!!!!

          M&MX supported Stokes/Plank closely equivalent theory to the DFM, but sponsor Bell shut Michelson up on that! see here; Only false logic NEVER BEFORE RECOGNISED put Lorentz on another track (Stokes 10993 Fig13). see here; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

          The CMBR rest frame logically destroys SR as we understand it. I feel like Galileo. The SUN IS NOT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE! We need to think more carefully. It is a preferred 3rd frame. Only the DFM avoids the logical inconsistencies. AND it meets observation better, AND it uses the SR postulates. It IS SR! But an Extra Special Relativity (ESR)? with no paradoxes.

          Do let me know if you can see a better way to explain it!

          Best wishes,

          Peter

          Christi

          Thank you. Indeed all Gedankens actually do that as they produce logical results without paradox in the DFM without the LT, but do not with the LT. It also matches all empirical results, i.e. 'Lensing' delays; We've 'patched' Shapiro delays to death, even needing 'gravity wells'! but this matches all observation with no anomalies and patches.

          NASA (Dan Gezari) experimented with Lunar Laser ranging. The results were consistent with the DFM's SR NOT SR with LT. http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818v2 (A 'mainstream' denialist quickly put out a paper saying the lenses must be dusty or something, which had no logic anyway!).

          Wang has also done a number of consistent experiments, but as there's been no alternative to SR with LT UP UNTIL NOW, it's all just been ignored, and the ranks of dissidents wanting to throw out SR keep swelling. The DFM offers the perfect compromise to remove dissent, just perfect SR AND QM a bit to match.

          I posted a full train Gedanken in Tom Ray's string. He was previously disparaging, but stopped on reading it. It's passed all falsification. I've also discussed infinitely many buses with Dr Cosmic Ray! Did you read the 'Stream' one as well.

          I predicted the quadrupolar CMBR asymmetry in an early paper, and the recent result in the string above, along with others. Not one has proved wrong, and many anomalies are resolved. But will science take note? For three years I've just been ignored. Papers are rejected as they vary from current mainstream theory.

          I'm worried we may be beyond the point where ANY experiment or proven prediction will be taken note of. If it gains ground it may have to be by erosion! Unless this essay process and the super support here leads to anything.

          Venus express has just found the plasmasphere of Venus, as ours, Saturns and the suns.

          If you can think of any new experiment or prediction please do suggest it.

          (You'll find a link somewhere in my string to another viXra paper giving more extraordinary predictions, but not yet falsifiable - the most 'mainstream compliant' are in a paper currently in peer review - who knows!).

          Very many thanks. Best of luck to you to.

          Peter

          Constantinos

          Thank you. I agree all your mathematics is fully consistent with the DFM thesis. I would like to better understand the fundamental logic (which is due to my inadequate mathematics rather than logic) an am interested in your view of the Stochastic Van der Waal profile in relation particularly to the Planck Curve.

          I'd also like to ensure I've properly corrected the misuse of the term 'exponential' in the essay ref the resistance curve / LT relationship. I suspect I was trying to retain some relevance for the LT, when it may really need to be returned to Fresnel's original meaning.

          I agree it's important you get into the last 35 for assessment.

          Very best of luck.

          Peter

          Christi

          Falsification. A recent job was Atlantic weather routing advice for a round the world race boat, so I looked closer at the S Atlantic anomaly. It's the central depression 'cusp' of our plasma toroid, and getting bigger! (we're due a polarity change).

          Did you know The Hubble takes a peak of over 3,000 hits/cm^2/sec in this area? and the GPS satellites are wearing out faster than hoped due to the ion hits (sim profile to Pioneer/Voyager anomaly). In NS the vast zone between max balloon height and min orbit, (where a 'new gps' is mooted) is termed to 'ignorasphere', as we know very little about it and have ignored it.

          This gives the opportunity for a prediction; There will be a dense ionosphere, with higher electron to proton ration higher up far denser than the Hubble finds, but all in the EARTH'S reference frame. geocentric is therefore good, as the cusps are problematic. These will grow and move more, with the magnetic poles. Our kids would be well advised not to sunbathe as much as us. But mass extinction is unlikely even if the em field collapses in a pole change (there have been hundreds) as the ions will largely remain! If we all die? I was wrong.

          I've logged it here as I'm certain no-one else will publish or record it! it may also give a chance to check for the scattering delay/shift rate gradient the DFM predicts.

          (We overtook quite a bunch and moved to the van in the S Atlantic staying East)

          Thanks, best wishes.

          Peter