Edwin.

Thanks for your kind comments on the Aberration paper. How on earth can we get them Peer reviewed, or proposed to arXiv!?

'Bootstrapping' The whole basis is that bootstrapping ISN'T required, indeed au contraire (pardon mine too,) it's all about conservation of energy; E =f*lambda.

Imagine a block of ice flying (past you right to left) through space. Enter stage left some light pulses, waves or photons 1ns apart. They slow down 1. due to the n of ice (Stokes scattering), plus 2. due to the v of the ice block! The 2nd is oft forgot. The energy ('spacing' or wavelength) is compressed (blue shifted). (if stage right, they red shift on entry 'stretching' the energy). You see f conserved, but lambda and c changed. If you grab hold of and move with the ice you see c constant and both f and lambda changed.

Seperately, but as 'process', the energy of the ('C'?) field is compressed by the front of the block condensing the photoelectron cloud (fine structure) plasma. This means even if the ice were simply another 'body' of field medium in relative motion the light would be refracted by the plasma to stay at 'c' in the new 'inertial field.'

Read Willards comments carefully. He says, perceptively, that he agrees this means there is NO problem with Bell.

I think I agree with all in post 1. The above should help with 'clarification', but it seems once a key truth is found the flood gates of explanations open and we get swamped! Briefly;

Lorentz and Special Relativity (SR) gave us a long sought solution explaining CSL wrt moving observers, but the 'ether' as a light bearing '3rd frame' had to be removed as a by-product (though all other qualities were brought back for GR). We've had paradoxes, conflicts with QM and endless problems and anomalies, but no-ones yet found anything better to replace SR with. This is where we've been for over 100 years. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, 'belief' based, the powers that be can't now countenance any use of the 'scientific method' to question SR or the kings new clothes. So is this how humanity ends?

Luckily the actual answer proves the both Postulates and Principles of SR correct WITH a Quantum Mechanism, so the removal of the field is no longer necessary. There can be a complete combined (if complex) field again with various effects including gravity. I'd personally use the term 'C' for 'Condensate' as well as allowing 'c' wrt itself. The choice of letter is good. The arguments about detail? probably won't even start! but if they did would be eternal. It's difficult for brains to hold so many variables at first, but once it's familiar its self apparent.

This opens the flood gates to solving a host of anomalies. At the risk of frightening some, It suggests Lagrangian points exist at centres of gravitational equilibrium including black holes, gravity wells don't exist, (light goes at 'c' through galaxies in motion, perturbing light cone surfaces), dark matter is just the condensed plasma causing the flyby and Voyager anomalies, etc etc.

I'm an ex Rugby forward. I've done my bit, made a breakthrough and am now desperately looking round for some talented backs to pass the ball to and do the job I'm not equipped for.

I hope that hasn't confused you. You could help me with Fourier optics. I know it sits neatly somewhere between Huygens Construction and Ewald-Oseen extinction but I'm wary of using mathematics for abstraction.

Peter

Edwin,

I think Peter's fundamental idea is that for any two observers O1 and O2 in relative motion with respaect to each other, (i) observer O1 is associated with a physical inertial field I1, and observer O2 with an inertial field I2, and (ii) I1 modulates the velocity of light for O1, and I2 modulates the velocity of light for O2, in such a way that both observers, upon measuring this velocity, agree upon its value - or in other words, the value of c is the same in all inertial frames or fields. Such modulation takes place regardless of whether or not a cosmological preferred frame exists; hence, CSL is independent of, but not incompatible with, the existence of such a frame. If there is a preferred frame, then any observer who is at rest wrt this frame will also be associated with an inertial field that modulates the velocity of light in the appropriate manner; but the inertial field in question is physically and conceptually distinct from the preferred frame.

As for the question of "where we want to go," I think an important task is to explicate the nature of the quantum mechanism that modulates light's velocity, perhaps by relating this mechanism could be related to some already well-known and well-studied quantum mechanism. I think Peter has made some progress here by talking about inertial fields absorbing and emitting light waves; one question that remains, though, is what guarantees that the emitted light waves always and everywhere have the same velocity c when measured by the relevant observer.

Hope this helps.

Willard

Peter and Willard,

I'm thinking about what you wrote. I have some ideas and a new, interesting result, but I haven't made it all come together in my head. I hope it comes together soon, and will tell you if (when) it does.

Peter,

A few more remarks, but first a question: Do you know whether polarization of the photon E-field is preserved by passing through a plasma? That is, if the photon is vertically polarized 'going in', is it vertically polarized 'coming out', and so for any other polarization. I don't want an opinion, just the facts if they exist.

I'm sure that this is *not* what you were referring to on page 2 where you state "waves propagate through a dielectric medium by...polarizing the particles." You are surely referring to inducing electric dipole moments. Unless I'm wrong on this, I don't need any more explanation.

A separate thought-- also in the same paragraph you state "whatever relative speed waves arrive at, they'll be re-emitted at the new local c...". Does this mean you are leaving the door open for a situation in which the local velocities add up to greater than c?

A further note -- I don't buy the galactic halos as refractive zones of active dark matter. You might want to drop or de-emphasize this argument as it seems unnecessary to your main theme, which would not suffer if my idea of dark matter is correct.

I'm still working on the topic you and Willard commented on. Finally, every time I read your fine paper it makes more sense. (I'm sure this is true for most well written papers dealing with complex ideas.) So I invite you to reread my paper in light of our discussions.

Still havin' fun (in honor of Ray Munroe)

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #17

Edwin

Thank you. ..In order;

I'm pretty sure one of my references, or a similar one, covers it but I can't recall all the details. Normally the waves polarise the particles, (though I only switched to the simple word 'polarise' due to all the references, and I'm not entirely happy with it,) But, as in FM, it can be reversed. I'm no expert in the area as all I was interested in was the delay element, which I conceived as having as much of an 'inertial' basis as anything! - a la Constantinos.

v plus or minus c. Yes, precisely. You just caught a glimpse of the enormous invisible elephant in the room. Whatever other speed would an electron ever emit a 'photon' at?? This is precisely where one too many variables has proved too much for human conceptual thinking power. It has to emit it at it's own 'new' 'c' to complying with SR yes?! And what anyone sees is the light scattered from it, at 'c' yes? Now consider different observers frames. You'll find NOTHING breaches SR or 'c' anywhere. And everything matches ALL observation.

So v plus or - c can be apparent 'rate of change of position' from another frame, which lets us escape from 100yrs of mysterious elephant dung, limiting the domain of Bells inequality in preventing Locality and Reality. (and all entirely within the SR postulates).

HALO's. If you'd done the research I have on halo's you'd buy it with your life savings. This IS the same stuff as the FlybyPioVoyager anomaly, NASA well know it's a dense 'plasma', as do Sloane and Planck etc. This is just one of 100's of papers;http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/702/2/1472

Light CANNOT, EVER get through a plasma cloud without being slowed and refracted subject to density, and the relative speed (co-motion of C fields) gives the Stokes 'up-shifting of frequency. ESA confirmed that yet again from other galaxies only yesterday.

Light goes through deep space at 'c'. Light also goes through moving galaxies and buses at 'c'.; 'Lensing' Delays of over 3 years!!? (as predicted, and I've predicted we'll find over 10). 'Gravity wells' are just a ridiculous 'patch' up.

My paper on CD is still under PR consideration at present, but it clarifies a lot of the essay content. I expect they're terrified by possible paradigm change.

I promise you that bit contains the most sense in the paper. Are we really beyond facing and correcting our biggest errors?

Have courage

Peter

PS. I've re read your paper twice now. The existence of 'my' mechanism is the only falsifiable way to allows your field without contradicting SR. I still agree with almost all, but the other details are only due to the above, and it's easily fine tunable - if you dare risk the crackpot squad!

    Peter, I probably was not specific enough, but I didn't want to bias your answer. I specifically want to know if there is any data that would indicate that vertical (or other) polarized light can enter a plasma and exit as circularly polarized light. Do you know of any such data?

    Edwin. Sorry, no. The only refs I have with the slightest relevance are on metamaterials. Interestingly you may like to check out Martin Wegeners work at Karlsruhe, whose gold helixes can convert light to strong currents subject to whether left or right circularly polarized, mentioned in the latest (v209 No2794) NS.

    Peter

      6 days later

      Hi Peter,

      I'm just thinking about your paper, particularly the local speed of light (c/n) idea. If photons travel through a vacuum, then there really isn't anything to run into/be absorbed by and then re-emitted. Of course, if you pass light through a gas, then the gas molucules re-emit the photons. I like your explanation of the 6c gas jets from M87. Locally to those gas jets, everything traveling c or less. However, non locally, the jet is moving greater than c wrt the black hole. I'm guessing that the photon that travels from the 6c gas jet to the slow moving observer, that photon is going to undergo enormous frequency shifting as it transitions from 6c jet to 0.000001c observer.

        The way I understand the invisible elephant in the room is that every particle in a gas (with index of refraction n) contributes to some average local position. One particle is its own inertial reference frame. Any photons transitioning from one particle to another will have to undergo a frequency change/time dilation in order to account for the relative velocity between particle A and particle B; A=emitter, B=detector (or absorbing particle). The particles will have have a distribution of velocities (momentums). The absorption and re-emission of particles is really what makes n greater than one, and slows c down to c/n.

        Is this close to what you meant by the invisible elephant?

        Jason

        Absolute brilliance! You've pretty well understood it, which takes intellect, ..and to think I'd written you off. I think our earlier discussions helped, because it seems it's true that we have to 'get used to' different concepts before we can see them as truths.

        But the real work now is in the implications. That will take real intellect and clear thinking, but it clarifies all science, so anyone indoctrinated with current college stuff may struggle to let go of it. It provides the quantum basis for Relativity, explaining CSL without having to deny the rest frame of the CMB as a dark energy field, and I'm just exploring down the path it lights up to QG, which gives a different and more coherent view of much of physics.

        Yes Jason. The 'elephant in the room' should now be gradually becoming visible to you, and you can start to avoid the old elephant droppings! I look forward to your paper, (and hope you'll reference this one) but do reign in your tendancy to get carried away with stuff that brands you as a crackpot.

        My paper on the galactic evolutionary cycle it's exposed should be off for consideration today. It's got some interesting results, and shows we may indeed be eaten by our black hole (toroid) shortly after the sun expires, (so may need your 6-7c hyperdrive to find a new home). If you make more progress on the 7c Incentric motion route I'll tell you something very interesting from the paper.

        best wishes

        Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #23

          Hi Peter,

          I've been thinking about how strange it is that we can observe a 7c phenomena. Why isn't FTL phenomena invisible? Things like gravity and relativistic velocity induce a Time Dilation and frequency shift in photons. When we observe the light emanations from something moving relativistically (M87 jet, relativistic rocket or spaceship), those photons are Time Dilated and redshifted (transverse Doppler and moving away). But if we can SEE the M87 jet, then some blue-shift has to occur to prevent photons from red-shifting into f=0.00000000...Hz. If f=0, then the photon is undetectable and has no energy. I think you get the idea. But blue shift is what we would see at the bottom of a very steep gravity well; blue shift isn't noticeable on earth, but it would be noticeable if we lived near the event horizon of a black hole. If we wanted to catch up to the 7c jet, we would have to climb an enormous gravity potential (10g acceleration for months, oh my). In fact, the M87 jet might be a phenomena that can punch through the 0.9999999999999999999999999c barrier.

          I think you're saying that such a 0.999...c barrier can span multiple ranges of c if the particles of a gas have a high enough energy distribution. Such a high energy distribution is only possible through something as violent as an M87 energy jet.

          I can't see it, but I can feel the implications in my bones. Time dilation of photons is one thing. But time dilation of long duration events (minutes, days, years, millenia) is going to bite us in the butt. I just don't know where our collective physics butt is, not yet.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #24

          One more thing. Photons carry causality. If an M87 jet goes by at 6 or 7c, then there is a problem with maintaining the causality chain across that velocity range and photon frequency range. Time dilation and frequency shifting can only range from f=1Hz (radio wave) to f=10^22Hz (gamma rays). A time dilation shift outside that range is ... well, weird. It implies the existence of incredibly huge gravity potential or wormhole like behavior. A wormhole is just a gravity field that causes you to fall from one point in space to another. But what if the gravity potential required you to climb from one point in space to another? What is the opposite of a wormhole? Whatever we call it, it would permit multiple ranges of the speed of light. To say it another way, a photon would frequency shift multiple ranges of 10^22Hz from one end to the other.

          If I'm getting too abstract, feel free to just move on.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #25

          I'm sorry for jabbering on your essay thread, I thought of something else. Photon frequency also carries information content. When photons redshift, information is lost; well, I think the information is still there, it's just blurred or indistinct. Loss of detail occurs when the photons are redshifted. but when the photons are blue shifted again, the information is recovered.

          Do you understand what I mean by that?

          Jason, I'll do each point;

          1. Last post -almost perfect, but signal is not 'damaged' by compression (see Hau lab experiments in BEC)

          2. "Why isn't FTL phenomena invisible?" You struggle with this and need to focus; We are NOT seeing 'photons' that have been ftl. In both atomic scattering and QED energy is re-emitted at the new speed, as NEW 'photons' if you wish, doing the new 'c'. Each only tell us of a relative POSITION at a certain time. You missed the point about the edge of the shadow. You must think more carefully, how fast does the signal about it's position reach you? at 'c' wrt the CMB rest frame (the one that can't exist in SR).

          3. Causality. The fact that we are NOT seeing the actual 7c photons protects causality. Which it has to as we already see some photons, emitted together in one order, arriving 3 years apart in the wrong order (Einstein lensing). The real cause of this is refraction in the (c/n) plasma curving the light, and the co-motion of the medium (i.e. galaxy) causing the light moving through it to either be delayed or arrive early (subject to galaxies motion). This is real nature, (discrete fields) not the 'elephant dropping' belief based 'science' they still teach at college. You'll note it explains why mass in motion wrt a vacuum has higher gravitational potential (due to the condensed plasma) than that at rest, which nothing else does.

          4. Wormholes. They don't exist. Black holes are toroid. (Look at my fig 3, the centre of the crab nebula and many others on the web) probably with Lagrangian points at the centre not singularities.

          5. Plasma jets heading away from us can't be seen due to the red shift. I've predicted we'll find some on radio wavelengths, and sure enough wadayano, they're often called 'radio galaxies'. (I have to smile or I'd cry!)

          Have you read the famous short 'Who moved my cheese'? It should be compulsory reading for scientists.

          Let me know if that helps. But be prepared to conceive of the CMB 'rest frame' field condensing particles, and NOT in conserved photons. Then the elephant starts to become clear (along with dilation and contraction) and you'll wonder why the others can't see it.

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #27

          Peter,

          1. I wasn't referring to compression. In Entropy/information theory, the information content is twice the frequency. I'll have to find the equation. Basically, that means that redshift reduces the frequency and therefore reduces the information content that is being carried. But if the photons are again blue-shifted, that should recover the information content.

          2. I'm OK with a broken path (absorption,emission,absorption,emission...). You said, "You missed the point about the edge of the shadow. " Shadow is only the absence of photons. But photons still move at c; so shadow edges have to move at c as well.

          3. Causality is transmitted by photons. If the Sagnac effect of galaxies or some other phenomena gets these out of order, it's interesting but it's not a time machine.

          P:"But be prepared to conceive of the CMB 'rest frame' field condensing particles, and NOT in conserved photons. "

          I'll be happy to take a look at the CMB "rest frame". I'm not sure what you mean by conserved photons. Energy is conserved. Time dilation changes the frequency of photons. If photons are absorbed and re-emitted, then the energy has to go somewhere. Perhaps energy is being exchanged between the photons and the CMB rest frame.

          Jason

          SHADOWS No, you've still missed it. Consider a shadow edge crossing an exponentially increasing curve (perhaps of a slightly irregular planet surface). The rate of movement of the edge is NOT controlled by the speed of photons!! It may become almost infinite as the curve shallows. What we are seeing is a 'rate of arrival of different photons' on different parts of the surface. It may appear to be an entity 'moving', just like a film at the cinema, but it is not. The light informing us of it's change of position travels to us at at 'c'. It's the same with plasma jets. We're seeing 'apparent rate of change of position' this time of actual photons but in another frame. Nothing moves at over 'c' 'where it's moving'. It takes a little intellect to understand the difference (and see the elephant!).

          CMB FRAME. You're correct in "energy is conserved" between frames, and so is the signal. It was me calling it 'compressed' - which is blue shifted, and, yes, renormalised on returning to the first frame (field).

          The important thing about CMB rest frames is that they prove space is not 'nothing', it is something that does does 'c' with respect TO. We have overcome the only obstacle to this by proving they are LOCAL background fields, co-moving not just one absolute field.

          I'm sure I'm not a genius, and James has now got it, (we'll be in double figures soon!) so it's only preconditioning with nonsense and lack of dynamic conceptualisation skills that prevents you from seeing it.

          LASERS. I realised last night how your multi laser lit could work. Don't buy the expensive colours you don't need them. You just need to get one plasma beam going with an accurate signal arrival time (you may need to get into phase interference). Then find a way of 'injecting' a 2nd beam into the first. The 2nd signal should arrive faster (It'll need time distinguishing pulses - or send some music!). You could always try 3 beams. The signal should arrive red shifted but 'superluminally' (if you did it all in a vacuum!).

          I believe this may be similar to what Nimtz did, which was dismissed by the troglodytes, before re emerging as 'tunnelling.' Of course if you do it on a train and observe from the embankment you'll get another or - v to help. The best results would be by going to Mars to observe. The Lorentz formulae is not required as the information on relative speed only reaches you at 'c' anyway. (as the jets and shadow umbra).

          Now do read it again, because you'll have rushed and not fully understood or absorbed it I'll pay your Mensa fee once you fully understand it!

          Best wishes

          Peter

            • [deleted]

            • Post #29

            Dear Peter,

            I'm going to need a minimum of five lasers of different wavelengths. This is why. What happens to the photons of a laser when the beam is shined straight into a a blackhole? The photons blue shift. What does that mean? That means that every photon is undergoing:

            1. an increase in frequency,

            2. an increase in energy and,

            3. an increase in momentum.

            Why? Because the beam is experiencing a gravitational force. Call it conjecture, but I suspect that if I can duplicate the frequency profile of a laser falling into a black hole (without the black hole), that I can reproduce the associated gravity field. It's a guess and a hunch. It deserves an experiment to test it.

            I agree with you Peter; space is not nothing.

            As for shadows traveling FTL, I'm concerned that shadows make it possible to signal FTL? Photons are the fastest particles that we've encountered.

            P:"I'm sure I'm not a genius, and James has now got it, (we'll be in double figures soon!) so it's only preconditioning with nonsense and lack of dynamic conceptualisation skills that prevents you from seeing it."

            If we disagree about things like c+v, I certainly don't want to be a troglodyte about it. You are free to disagree with me and still be brilliant and open minded. We can disagree without one of us being wrong. Your c+v approach looks more like a frame dragging variation. Isn't that what the Sagnac effect comes down to? However, I'm assuming a constant unmoving frame in which relativity, as it's currently understood, is valid.

            Maybe the elephant in the room is like space; it's real, but it's invisible and not directly detectable.

            Hi Jason

            As spies say, the best place to hide something is in plain view. The elephant is a fact which is as real as real gets.

            A string of photons, therefore also waves, approaching a black hole, would be progressively stretched, i.e. red shifted, not blue shifted.

            You cant say when something is red or blue shifted it gains or loses energy without defining which frame you're observing from. The energy of each photon is conserved as it changes frame. It is just compressed (contracted) or stretched (dilated).

            Your 2nd laser will be 'getting a ride' on the first laser (plasma) beam, and so on.

            I give you some clarification examples in the current blog string with John which you should enjoy.

            Best wishes

            Peter

              • [deleted]

              • Post #31

              Hi Peter,

              When a laser is beamed straight into the center of a black hole, the photons can't fall faster, they have to frequency shift. If the beam consisted of neutrons or skydivers, then those neutrons and skydivers could fall faster as they fall through the event horizon. But photons don't fall faster. Yet, they must blue shift because they are gaining energy as they fall into the black hole.

              But consider two observers. There are the event horizon bugs who live on the event horizon (sorry, I know that is spectacularly silly); they endure the huge gravity g-forces. There are also the skydivers who free-fall (pushed out of the space-ship for experimental physics sake).

              The event horizon bugs knew that the He-Neon laser was red, but are surprised to see a blue laser.

              The involuntary sky-diver sees (just before hitting an event horizon bug), he sees, blue shift from the gravity well AND redshift from his relativistic velocity. He will see a yellow laser, but won't care because he's about to fall through the event horizon.

              Note that the skydiver is falling away from the He-Ne laser, so it will be redshifted. So infrared (velocity) blueshift (gravity) averages to yellow; approximately.

              • [deleted]

              • Post #32

              Oops! The involuntary skydiver is in free-fall and sees red laser all the way down to the event horizon (and the event horizon bugs). After that, he doesn't see anything.