2020 Vision. A Model of Discretion in Space by Peter A Jackson

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?

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

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

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your nice message on my forum. I have to admit being a little nervous toward the end, since it seemed like my essay was always "on the bubble" and there was a lot of fluctuation in the ratings right up to the cut off. How about Jason Wolfe's late charge to get in under the wire. I didn't see that coming, he seemed to come from nowhere. Good for him though.

The community scoring in general was a lot lower, across the board, than I had ever imagined. Still, I feel honored to get my essay before the judges. Maybe, I can squeak out an HM.

Best of luck in the next round,

Dan

Peter,

Your assessment is probably very accurate and I also find it very humorous.

When I first started reading essays I started to try and rate them and after a few I decided I was going to go digital and just vote high or not at all. My particular philosophy was to try and identify essays I thought should be in the final review and give them all 9 or 10. I figured that was the best way to maximize my influence on the competition. If I didn't think it was appropriate to the finals I didn't vote on it. What purpose does it serve to rate someone low? In what way does that reflect a supportive spirit?

The motivation for rating low, particularly at the last second, is obvious. I guess there are alot of people who take this stuff very seriously.

Of course I view a painting as just a painting. It has no more or less value than what you give it, and its true value is personal and only lies in the process of creating it.

And so I wish you good luck in the future. I never really commented specifically about your essay so I will leave you with this final thought for future investigation. Since you know you have to understand your measuring device when collecting data, does a clock really measure time?

Pete

Peter,

Thanks for responding. I might be too sensitive or cynical at my advanced age.

Jim

Congratulations, Dr. Jackson, if I am refernencing the proper website. It would seem that silent threads are not rewarded, much, after all (a.k.a. Justice).

Thanx

Hi Peter,

Again my congratulations, but you deserved a first place (nothing wrong of course with Danielle Oriti) because of the innovative compromising science.

I also think that when even number one has a score of only 5.4 out of ten this means that the total result of the contest is even less as everage in vieuw of the participants, and that my friend is strange when you see all the positive posts on the forums, perhaps the maximum to give was a 6 and the minimum a 0, then everything again is in equilibrium.

Hope we can continue our contact.

Wilhelmus

Dear Peter,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top ten placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the top front runners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

Dear Peter,

In my thread 833 you wrote for example: "Only our poor understanding and self centric thinking allowed Lorentz to ignore the correct Fresnel/Stokes/Plank solution when Stokes died and hijack Fresnel's formula to invent the LT."

I highly appreciate your courage to address recent experimental results that apparently contradict theories. However, I do not consider your imprecise style appropriate for a top ten essay writer.

Did my and your poor understanding and self centric thinking really allow Lorentz to do something?

Is "the correct Fresnel/Stokes/Planck solution" a well established term which is understandable to everybody without explanation? Hopefully you will not take it amiss that I corrected Planck. Can you please reveal what paper by Planck you refer to?

I was not familiar with the word hijack because it seems to rarely occur in scientific literature.

Didn't the name Lorentz transformation go back not to Lorentz himself but to Poincaré? How relate e.g. Woldemar Voigt and FitzGerald to Fresnel's formula?

At least it looks as if you are convinced that the LT (Lorentz transformation) is wrong, but you do not consider this worth any further scrutiny. You just do not need LT as to nonetheless also arrive at Einstein's SR. Right?

Hence you persistently ignored my repetitious hints to Van Flandern. Right?

Eckard

Dear Eckard

Thanks. I was trying to keep it rather too short! which unavoidably precludes full precision. In English we commonly use the extended 'Royal 'we'. Her Maj uses it instead of 'I', but we can only do the opposite, referring to the plural right up to 'Humankind', to save blaming it on 'them'. So it was 'us lot on planet Earth' I referred to. And yes, if you read the paper and consider the DFM's non-absolute frame solution, it becomes clear it was only due to 'self centric' thinking that Lorentz felt the LT was needed.

I rather thought Stokes famous 'full ether drag' was common knowledge, (referred by me and also in last years essay), as were his supporters, which also included Heaviside and others. I have no issue with your correction of that part of Plancks' work you corrected, but you are here guilty of the same fault you accuse me of, not detailing your correction! But I do forgive you as your memory may not be quite as good(ish!) as mine.

The details of Planck's discourse with Lorentz are interesting in themselves. Here is a derived extract from http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022; "Contrary to some opinion (Lorentz) had accepted that the Fresnel/Stokes etc. 'Full Ether Drag' option complied with M&M. His objection was that flow over a sphere is uneven and would not be zero at it's surface. Max Planck supported Stokes thesis and suggested compressible ether, more dense at the surface. Lorentz responded; "..this assumption of an enormously condensed ether, combined, as it must be, with the hypothesis that the velocity of light is not in the least altered by it, is not very satisfactory."

Poincare, yes indeed, but the equation was originally derived long before by Fresnel, I believe when originally considering the lack of backwave in Huygens Construction, to become the Huygens-Fresnel Principle, but used for another more valid purpose, also considered in Larmors mooted relativistic frame transformation, nailed to Fitzgeralds Irish maths, to create the LT. But no history of course is anywhere near complete even if we write 1000 books!

I have made it clear the DFM shows the LT as superfluous (wrong) Eckard, though the formula (not belonging to Lorentz) has other uses. However, it's imprecise to say 'arrive at Einsteins' SR' as, if you understand my thesis, you'd recall that while it arrives at Einstens SR 'Postulates', the DFM makes a small adjustment to an 'assumption' which gives give it a working Quantum Mechanism. (Unification).

I know Tom Van F's work quite well, but I don't think your 'imprecise comment here is appropriate for a top 10 essay writer', (just joking Eckard!) You didn't say about which of Tom's many theories and papers you 'hinted'. Please pass me the specific reference, as I have to you a number of times, and I'll respond in full.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Tom,

Thank you for so many words of reply. Perhaps you mistook me. I referred to your typo Plank, I did not correct Planck's work.

Let me omit the history and focus on the central question that puzzles me:

Is the Lorentz transformation as formulated by Poincaré a correct basis of Einstein's special theory of relativity and the subsequent Minkowski metric?

Because I am not a physicist I looked into the textbook "The Special Theory of Relativity" by Bohm. It tries to tell that the twin paradox is no paradox at all.

Also looking into Einstein's 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik ..." I am ready to agree with the postulates but not with his (Poincaré's) return method of synchronization, which seem to me corresponding to a paradoxical dependency on (v/c)^2.

In his 2005 paper "Is faster-than light propagation ..." Van Flandern revives what he calls Lorentz relativity (LR), the opinion by Lorentz himself, de Sitter, Sagnac, Michelson, Ives, Tangherlini, Mansouri & Sexl, Beckmann, Hayden, Hatch, and Selleri.

Already in his 2003 paper "Lorentz Contraction" Van Flandern explained convincingly to me the time desynchronization.

I reiterate my question again: Are the results of the lunar laser experiment agreeable with the opinion of the late Van Flandern?

What do you consider wrong: LT including Lorentz contraction, LR, both, or none of them?

Regards,

Eckard