• [deleted]

  • Post #217

Dear Peter,

I reread your excellant essay. I think that Physics is a bilingual thought process involving both language and mathematics. Sadly enough, most people fall on one side or the other and don't do a good job of balancing language and mathematics. As a mathematics-conscientious-objector yourself, you do a good job of introducing just enough mathematics (such as the index of refraction and frame-of-reference transformations) to tie into physics formality. From a language perspective, your essay was comparable to other great language presentations, such as Julian Barbour's and Tom Ray's, and I enjoyed your pictures.

There was a point near the beginning of your essay that confused me slightly. You said "As it slows down it shifts slightly to the blue (as Rayleigh scattering also turns the sky blue)." Putting these two very different phenomena together as if they are related is confusing. The light is blue-shifted as it approaches a stronger gravitational field (the Earth's vs. space), but Rayleigh scattering removes more blue than red light because blue wave-lengths are shorter than red wave-lengths, and therefore have a shorter interaction distance in air.

Figure 1 does look a lot like a hot, fresh doughnut plus a bow shock (my wife, daughter and I ate breakfast at Krispy Kreme Doughnuts the other day - I don't eat there often because I'm usually watching my calories, but it is fun every once in a while). I finally put together a paper model of a lattice-like torus with Buckyball symmetries. Now I'm ready to cut up a couple of soccer balls...

You quoted Minkowski's "endlessly many spaces". If each bus is a different "space", or a different frame of reference, and the photons get on and off of buses with different local speeds, then this can explain your view of Relativity. My math background (I only minored in Math, but most PhD Physicists are exposed to lots more Math) wants to use "delta" notation to represent this, and then convert it into a differential and/or integral equation. It would probably look a lot like the Principle of Least Action.

You say that your model does not require an "aether". I agree that the Classical aether is dead, but I wonder what effect the "vacuum" or "Dirac Sea" have on large-scale "continuous" effects. In the case of the speed of light, we have c=1/SQRT(eps*mu) where eps and mu are physical properties of the "vacuum". I'm not sure of the implications regarding a vacuum-like "new-aether" - see Constantin Leshan's essay.

Good Luck in the contest & Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

    ANALOGY

    Below is a response in the 'Time Machine' blog, where neither Georgina's or my equivalent theses on reality were clear enough for Tom. I thought it worth repeating here as recognising the weakness with current through basis is important.

    "If you (and dozens of others) are flying in spacecraft beyond the moon on various vectors watching the earth go by, and see flashes of light go through the atmosphere in the same direction as the orbit. Who on earth believed it was right to have to say we'd need a Lorentz Transformation to stop it looking to us like it went faster than 'c'??

    Do you really believe that? If so please give your logical analysis of why it's needed?

    An who wins the argument between the moving observers about how fast it went?"

    So do we imagine the flash of light' really gives a damn who is up in space and which way they're going? All light signals reach them via scattering at 'c' anyway.

    Imagine we have a 30,000km road across the US, with street lights, switched to all come on, from one end to the other, within 0.5secs. Saying we need the LT is like saying this breaks the laws of physics! (many of which incidentally are hereby repealed so we can finally get physics moving along one more).

    We can call it the DFM, Extra Special Relativity, or whatever we wish. It is SR, with the postulates and a quantum mechanism but without the paradoxes. Otherwise called 'nature'.

    Are some still not yet able to see it, even when spelled out?

    Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #219

      Dear Peter,

      Are the Lunar Laser ranging results by Gezari http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818v2 inconsistent with Van Flandern's LR? So far you ignored my hint to him. I am also not yet sure whether or not LT is trustworthy. See my reply today to Georgina in my thread 833.

      Regards,

      Eckard

      Hi Peter,

      Congratulations, you are today twice mentioned in the front page, I think you deserve it,

      You and me are each on another side of the earth so we are moving each with a velocity of 450m/sec around the center of the earth as you are on the other side earth we are moving each about 900m/sec, that would be true if we were moving in paralel lines , as we are both "locals" the difference remains the ca.450m/sec., so our movement (relative to the center of the earth) is local and the locality is the earth, we don't feel any movement.

      relative to the solar system our velocity is about 30km/sec.

      relative to the heart of the milky way it is 210 km/sec.

      relative to the origin of the universe, wich is in my opinion 5.39121x10^-44sec after a virtual zero, we move at 600km/sec towards the constellation Leo (New Scientist 19 february 2001 , Roger Highfield)

      and still both of us are locals, our consciousness tells us we are not moving, perhaps relative to another universe we are moving at 7c who knows,

      This also means that we need no eather (Ray !), because when you introduce in Peters theory the eather, then you will always meet an eather bow shock which occurs only when one locality encounters another, we could view our universe as a whole and then when meeting another universe we could encounter an eather bow shock, but only the kind of eather that is meant as observing our universe as a locality, the eather of the other Universe will be of different constitution. In this universe the abovenamed eather (locality eather) does not interfere with minor localities it only interferes with other eathers of other Universes.

      In this way Peter I think we can make a definition of every kind of "locality", each having its own limits, wher internal c=c, when a bow chock occurs we meet another locality. Please corrigate me when I am wrong.

      I also studied Edwin Klingman's essay (and his first one that I still digesting), he also reacted positive on my essay. I really I think that combining your ideas could solve a lot of problems in physics, again thank you for being the first one to read my essay (I am learning the tricks) and to comment it so positive. On the last day of rating I feel very proud that I could share my ideas for the first time with so many thinkers around the world.

      Very good luck Peter, but I think your chances are great,

      Wilhelmus.

      Ray

      Ah! ..you'd already scored it then. Shame! No worries, I liked yours anyway as it has real ideas and wasn't just another 'my personal take on history' resume so the boost is nothing to do with the compliments, which I know were just you being a really nice bloke!

      Rayleigh? Brilliant man his Lordship, did you know he did it all without maths? A bit incoherent and scattery, but he knew the fourth power of waves! Yes, I agree, but via the DFM we find there's more to it than that - to start with it seems it might be the plasmaspheric ions not air, and part of the PMD process! You're right, I should have explained, but it was cut out by Occam to make the limit. It's in another paper on PMD and harmonics, which explains why rainbows invert the moment they're out of our sight (I kid you not!).

      Fig 1 is the shock not the donut. As NO-ONE FOUND THE HIDDEN BLACK HOLE I'll reveal it. It's in the HH34 ESO Fig. Look out (think BIG!) from the source of the jet/s. You will find some curved light, and one large bright splash. That (my prediction is) is all lensed light from behind the black hole. It's actually as big as more Krispy Kreems than you and I could eat! The outer bit has been termed the 'dust cloud', but it's a toroid of helical twin axis rotating energy. This one should be slowing down soon as it's run out of Krispy Kremes to eat and spew out!. You may see why I struggle to reconcile it with Bucky's vandalised footballs.

      When I said the DFM doesn't 'require' "ether", I went on to hint that actually, once we get past the mainstream 'belief' problem (around 2020 unless we find someone with both authority AND courage!), we might find that as it 'allows' something similar we can have it back as the whole of physics and cosmology can then work properly with a unified field. I used to quite like the Dirac Sea, (but which way up?) But if Edwins C field pans out that does the job just fine, essentially the (dis)continuum or 'condensate'.

      Did I mention it resolves the re-ionisation issue too? There's a link to a paper in Phil's archive somewhere above.

      See below for another analogy I just gave Tom. It's all about needing holistic rather than self centric thinking. The sun is not the centre of the universe! (I'm moving to a nicer house in case I'm arrested!).

      Now, ..about that new book I mentioned....

      Peter

      Genius from Georgina

      I had to post this brilliant response from Georgina Parry to my agreeing with Tom that (current) QM is not intuitive (except I blame our current intuition).

      G; "I do not agree that it is counterintuitive, when interpreted as I have outlined on this thread. Current logic has been false because there has been an assumption of an actual concrete object distributed across a multiverse or a pervasive quasi reality. The hypothetical supposition of states is purely theoretical and so does not qualify as in any way real. Though due to sequential change in foundational reality an object has a sequence of spatial positions and the one that is detected depends upon when the data is received. The sequence is purely historical and the object only has one existence and is not smeared across space or distributed across a multiverse.

      So Re. a) Logic has been false, as it was based on a false assumption, leading to counterintuitive outcome.

      Re. b) Intuition -is- inadequate, on its own but it can provide insight which then needs to be evaluated for usefulness. Allows one to readdress a)

      Re c) Our understanding of quantum physics has been inadequate, because of a)

      When readdressed it is no longer inadequate or counterintuitive."

      (Back now to PJ); - I stand corrected and concede entirely. - OK, Perhaps it's saying essentially the same as I was, -that our understanding has been 'incomplete'-, but says it in a far better and more specific way. The DFM of course does also change our understanding of QM 'in operation' slightly, (scattering in plasma) but only to even better comply.

      All mathematicians & quantum computists see also above and Dr Ionescue's essay.

      Peter

      Wilhelmus

      Yes. You're using the correct Holistic not Self-Centric viewpoint. (my Ref[25]).

      Apparently Western Europeans and US Students are the worst at this!! Asked 'Where is the truck?" The self centric response may be "around 300m away, behind me, to the South, moving away." The proper (Holistic) view would be; "On the road beside the red building moving south." This is the 'Lab Frame' error. Lodge made it (1893 Fig 13) and we've kept on repeating it. There is only ONE VALID FRAME for measurement, the SAME frame as the object.

      The first respondent may have been on any of 10 moving buses, so the answer tells us nothing of the truck. SR assumes that doesn't matter, to explain constant light speed. Now that is otherwise explained (by the c/n of plasma- ion gas/shocks) we need to recognise it DOES matter, and all paradoxes and anomalies evaporate!

      However! This shows your logic below fails. Remember Einstein said "Space without Ether is unthinkable" (Leiden 1921). There may indeed be a continuum reference frame, (CMBR) except it's a DIScontinuum, precisely as Einstein predicted;

      (Gothenburg 1923); "There are then an infinite number of inertial frames which are in uniform translational motion relative to each other, and hence there is also an infinite number of mutually equivalent, physically preferred states of motion. Time is absolute, i.e.independent of the choice of the particular inertial frame; it is defined by more characteristics than logically necessary, although - as implied by mechanics - this should not lead to contradictions with experience. Note in passing that the logical weakness of this exposition from the point of view of the stipulation of meaning is the lack of an experimental criterion for whether a material point is force free or not; therefore the concept of the inertial frame remains rather problematical."

      All the DFM has now done is solved that problem. If only AE has space travel to hep he'd have done it himself.

      Peter

      Peter,

      Good news on the C-field front!

      The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

      The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to light passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.

      The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.

      From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsibnle for observable effects.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #225

      This is an interesting approach to looking at the fundamental discreness and relate it to continuous processes from the space-time phenomenon. A good essay. The concept of many spaces is easily grasped if one looks at the digital-analog problem not simply from quantity-time space but from quantity-quality-time space. Each ontological object is defined by quantity, quality where time may be viewed as neutral. The same object can be viewed in many spaces that are generated by qualitative motion that will help to define the nature of the space that is available to the scientist. There are therefore many spaces span by qualitative transformations. In physics, quantitative motion requires an implicit or explicit assumption of constancy of quality of the objects under critical inquiry. Any equation of motion under classical laws of thought is unstable and meaningless if constancy of quality is not assumed. Similarly, the understanding and the use of the methodological discretness require this constancy of quality. The result of the use of this constancy of quality and the classical laws of thought simply provides a model of epistemic reality that must be checked against ontological reality. It this unsurenes that lead Max Planck to discuss the problem of exact science as not properly braced with an undisputable methodological principle. Contradiction and paradoxes arise when the mathodoligical discretness runs into epistemic peoblem at the presence of simultaniety of quantitative and qualitative motion. I would like to conclude that the approach taken by Peter may help the current works on energetics, synergetics and complexity theory.

      KOFI KISSI DOMPERE.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #226

        Dear Peter,

        I try to be discrete about my scores, but I gave you a good score today, and I don't think it lifted your overall ranking much (you already had so many good scores).

        Have you seen a double rainbow? The colors are reversed and dimmer but still in the visible frequency range.

        I could live with Galileo's fate - it was much better than Giordano Bruno's.

        Isn't it worth sacrificing a couple of inexpensive Soccer balls for the greater good?

        Regarding the next book - It is difficult to end a book when you still have good ideas...

        Have Fun!

        Dr. Cosmic Ray

        KOFI

        Thanks for your kind response. The observer frame question throws up the critical difference that a Doppler frame transition from A to B (from 'ahead' of the frame B motion) viewed from frame A gives just a wavelength reduction, whereas viewed from frame B it reduces the wavelength but also increases the frequency.

        This gives E = f*lambda, to confirm the the law of conservation of energy, as well as c = f*lambda, to conform the the SR postulates.

        That is NOT however true of the 'APPARENT NOT REAL' picture from frame A.

        All the time we insist on the naive philosophy that what we observe from another inertial frame is reality (that we can measure no matter what our relative motion), then Physics will remain in the dark ages!

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #228

        Dear Peter,

        I have read your wonderful article about recycling nature of the universe and that is the truth. One who fully understands this truth is immortal and lives eternally. I am including the link to my essay here, so that people who like your work can see what I had to convey as well.

        Theory of everything

        I wish you all the best in your pursuit of the truth.

        Love,

        Sridattadev.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #229

        Peter,

        The object you are hiding must be in the protostar photo....with a jet that long it must be the TBH you mentioned, but can such large objects be also like remnants of the small and we are the witnesses of the tiny object at cosmological proportions?

        In your essay I was most curious about the idea that pressure only affected amplitude and not frequency. Pressure is indeed our enemy. Personally, I think the Navier Stokes equations will always blow up and that there is indeed a mass gap. That mass gap registers at the media model you incorporate into your essay. It is my suspicion that pressure also affects frequency but we are always in the wrong places and times so far to minutely measure this. LISA might change this?

        Michael

        Well worked out. But did you identify the lensed light betraying the Black Hole's outline?

        We must define the meaning of 'pressure' in more detail to validify our generalisations. We have missed something VERY important in present science, as I mention above;

        When a light signal in medium A enters a new medium B, moving at v, we observe (from A) a different wavelength.

        The light speed also changes (c/n), but, before we start thinking about the LT to stop it exceeding 'c' when we add v (medium) consider; An observer in medium B will also see a FREQUENCY change! This validates the SR postulates and Law of Conservation of energy (both c and E = f*lambda.)

        This is NOT TRUE from the viewpoint of observer A, as that is now not a valid observer frame from which to measure the phenomena within medium B.

        The reasons for introducing the LT are REMOVED. Light scattered from B to A does max. 'c' anyway. The SR postulates can now be met without paradox or the many anomalies that are thrown up.

        Are the powers of logic or visualisation of the majority of humankind really not yet adequate to comprehend this?

        Peter

        PARADIGM SHIFT

        A quick example and test for all re the post above;

        I think it's been rather missed that this, the DFM, is precisely the paradigm shift we've been searching for to remove the rift between QM and SR, and all the anomalies.

        I am a little nonplussed. Hmm, but, as an example; should I not be less unsurprised ? ..as this is simply one short step beyond most brains natural capability!

        Peter

        Do please comment!

        • [deleted]

        • Post #232

        Hello Peter,

        Well now that the voting is done it looks like you are going to make the cut.

        Congradulations. Just wanted to let you know I still think your essay is the best and hope to see you as one of the winners. I did think the ratings would have been higher across the board. You science guys are tough.

        Pete

        Steve

        Many thanks for your support. Sorry, I'd missed many of your interspersed comments, it was all a bit frantic with new ones!

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Walter

        Thank you. The rigorous argument is only as far as space allowed.

        In any advances in physics there must be differences with the older established understandings, otherwise no advance would ever be made!

        I've pointed out herein one mistake in there ref the term 'exponential', and explained to Ray re his query on Rayleigh scattering, where the PMD is actually in the ionosphere not the 'air' as Rayleigh assumed, and also more complex - so my mention in not technically incorrect. Unfortunately no space here to explain that fully, but the paper including it is due for publication. See reply to Ray below.

        Technical is unfortunately not 'easy' if you don't have the required knowledge. Note I left all the Quantum Computing angle out, though referred below (14th). If there are any other points do ask.

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #235

        Peter

        Much appreciated, thank you. I'm strictly not a 'science guy' but yes it's tough! look at this;

        I've had an extraordinary 40 different bloggers, and 56 scores! (not to mention public ones).

        35 bloggers were authors and ALL POSITIVE and supportive. Over 50% saw the answer!

        Let's use logic to analyse the stat's;

        Many said they'd given mine 10, indeed some, like Prof Ionescue and another read it very late and kindly did so without even messaging here.

        So, 1st approximation is say about 33 original votes, at average just say 7.5. = 247.7

        Mine was 5th before the last day. I went to bed with over 4 hrs to go.

        On top of the two 10's there were around 21 more votes to make 56. Each would have had to have scored it just 1 (total say 285) to drag the average back to the 5.1. shown !!

        I't may be considered none of those '1's were really valid in terms of essay content. It's probably the same for most, though I'd scored many around mine earlier and properly. An interesting idea may be to remove ALL the last minute '1' scores and compare THAT result!. Yes, that's tough, but it's really just all very silly. (Lucky I don't do maths really!)

        The really important point confirmed here is the one shown up in my essay,; That science currently seems quite happy to use invalid data for it's analysis. (Write to your senator?!)

        That's what's overdue for change, and why I have to be here.

        Thanks again and very best wishes with your work.

        Peter

          "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."

          Peter,

          Not being immersed in your esoteric world, I was slow to realize I was being mocked. I served well as a patsy.

          Jim