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!
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
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
James
Not at all! Just my humour- but I was serious. I hadn't read 'Endless Universe', so I got it immediately, I was also interested in co-author Perimeters Neil Turok's view. Thanks for flagging it up.
I got to the recycling chapter this week (I'm reading 3 at once as usual!) and started reading about branes. Well I have to tell you I've been braned brainless in recent years. Another string theory - you keep delving deeper and deeper looking for the substance and you realise you've ended up back where you started but tied up in 13 dimensional knots. I decided I might even play my trump of 32 dimensions, then I did a drawing with 33, so I realised it would be infinite and went elsewhere!
Anyway, my philosophical basis are research (empirical) logic and falsifiability. I have the most open of minds, but if I can't bring it back to fit with observation it's dropped.
And I really did like your essay, and comments. Many thanks.
Peter
Dan
You deserved it. I was gobsmacked by Jason as well, (I normally am) It must have been his prototype hyperdrive.
I ran it through the sausage machine and actually have a theory. Everyone was doing much better til the last few days. Because Jason was a bit out of it and is such a nice straight honest bloke (worth a mint!) no-one picked on him. Then when most were machine gunning all round them with 1's (see my note above.) Jason got missed, so they all dropped around him.
I don't expect Brendon to comment, but the DFM quantum computer says it was relativity i.e. as much others going down as Jason going up! It's all about understanding relativity and inertial frames properly to remove the paradox.
I intend to read yours again as I high marked you, (and may have even admitted it at the time Tom!) but my mind can only hold 20 essays and names together at a time (lol). I seem to remember there was one issue I wanted to discuss, but I seem to have mislaid that Qbit!
Peter
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
Wil
Thank you kindly. I tend to agree, but improving conceptual abilities and effecting paradigm shifts take time. Perhaps 2020 wasn't far out, but I am suddenly starting to get busy, so we never know.
It seems from the blog that some feel such as Christopher Wren and Buckminster Fuller should be allowed no forum or involvement in discussion of nature or the physical world.! I still believe most in science have a far more commendable philosophy. My philosophical view is if there weren't a minority of blinkered thinkers it may be US at the bottom! So a useful purpose is served, and we are reminded where the 'bottom' is as we hopefully head onward and upward.
Best of luck finishing your studies, and yes, I'm happy to stay in contact.
Peter
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
Eckard
Yes, I meant Planck, and you meant Peter!
The solutions become clear once discrete fields are understood. The answers are not simplistic Yes or No's. I will however give the simple answers here, and yet another step by step DFM logical analysis in another post.
Q1). Is the LT as Poincare the correct basis for Einstein's SR in Minkowski flat space time? A1) Yes it is correct for SR, No, it does not give not an accurate description of nature.
Q2). ..agree with the postulates but not with Poincaré's return method of synchronization, A2). I agree it gives paradoxical dependency on (v/c)^2, but the SR Postulates are correct. In fact all the supposed 'proof of SR' is actually only proof of the postulates.
Q3). Do the results of the lunar laser experiment agree with the late Van Flanderns opinion? A3). Yes AND No. Yes in that they are consistent with the LR 'dragged ether' (or 'elisyum') element, (which was based on Stokes/Plancks theory), and No, in that they are fully consistent with the DFM, wearas Van Flanders depth of consideration, and therefore other assumptions, were incomplete, unfalsifiable, and some false. Indeed this is probably why Van Flanderns thesis was not adopted.
Q5). What do I consider wrong: LT including Lorentz contraction, LR, both, or none of them? A5). The DFM shows the LT is wrong but there is a case of contraction which is equivalent to Doppler Shift. The BASIS of Lorentzian Relativity is correct, but it failed to address CSL (Constant Speed of Light irrespective of speed of observer). This is where Einstein came in, but made the wrong change, just giving different paradoxes.
The DFM now finally removes ALL paradoxes, reverting to the LR (and Stokes/ Planck) basis but marrying it properly with Huygens/Fresnel and Dopplers work, which gives it a Quantum Mechanism (well known Atomic Scattering) to explain the big issue; CSL.
It was really a case of using proper logic, and just 'joining the dots'.
Only physicist 'beliefs' now veil the simple picture of how nature really works.
I'll put the step by step analysis below as I really need to find out the best way to 'move the veil', so more than the present 1 in 4-5 can see it.
Best wishes
Peter
PS. For 'contraction' and 'dilation' watch the video; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803
Eckard AND ALL
As the DFM solution requires so many variables and cases I itemise each 'case' of light passing between inertial frames, which must be considered as 3D spaces, or different media, 1 and 2, with scattering (refractive boundaries) at each transformation. This may perhaps be a block of ice or gas.(Put the Cartesian system out of your mind) Consider a visible light 'pulse', or short string of photons or waves whichever you prefer.
In all cases, as we know, the light 'signal' the observer sees is scattered from the particles charged by the 'pulse'. (For simplicity we will not consider angles/Cos/theta).
Case 1a) Where the media are NOT co-moving. The observer in medium 1 is at rest with respect to (wrt) both. He sees the light speed and wavelength changed (Doppler shifted) by c/n (refraction co-efficient). But the signal reaching him (eyes or instrument lens) does so via medium 1, so at the 'c' (or local c/n) with respect to the observer. He records c = f*lambda for both the pulse in the other medium and the signal reaching him.
Case 1b) Observer in medium 2. (This may be a gas, i.e. air). All as above. Whether the pulse 'hits' his lense or is scattered to it, he records c = f*lamda, as the light is both slowed and Doppler shifted.
Case 2a); Observer in medium 1. Medium 2 is moving at v wrt medium 1 (say towards the light). Now the observer will see the wavelength the same as medium 1 but the apparent speed (wrt his frame) further reduced, and now ALSO frequency reduced, both proportionally to v. So APPARENT light speed (as it's now in a different inertial frame) = c/n - v. So the laws don't work!? Hmm. We'll go on;
Case 2b); Same, but with medium 2 moving on the SAME vector as the light. We'd get c/n PLUS v. But of course if 'n' is close to 1, and v is larger, that would be superlumenal. But we now see if we NEED the LT to prevent light going faster than 'c' anywhere. Actually of course it it is only 'APPARENT' speed we're seeing, because it's happening in a different frame to the observer. And yet again, none of the laws work as it's moving in a DIFFERENT inertial frame. But that is because it's an INVALID frame for measurement. All we're seeing is an apparent 'rate of change of position' as the light we see is a sequence of scatterings from different particles, emitted at c (or c/n).
Case 3a) Observer IN medium 2. Imagine you're on some planet, out in space, surrounded by an ionosphere, near a star. We'll call it 'Earth', and it's moving towards star b. Entering medium 2 the light from star b is blue shifted TWICE; firstly to c/n in the atmosphere, (as case 1 above), SECONDLY the additional Doppler shift due to the MOTION of the planet. HOWEVER.. In this case, as the SPEED does not change (within medium 2) it is the FREQUENCY that increases, so f balances lamda, to maintain c, So E = f*lamda is invariant, which is the Law of Conservation of energy. c/n = f*lamda is also invariant as this IS the valid observer frame for measurement.
Case 3b) Same as 3a but the planet moving AWAY from the star. Speed c/n stays constant, wavelength increases due to motion and frequency reduces to balance it.
(We can also play with cos*theta etc. for different angles in all these cases but it's only a red herring to confuse clarity of thought here, it does however have a direct analogy in geometrical optics with the time averaged Poynting vector - and the breakdown of the Law of Refraction between co-moving media - but forget all distractions for now!).
Case 4a-z). Observer in motion. This is our 3rd observer condition. He has been at rest in Medium 1 and 2. now he is moving wrt both. In this case there is NO DIFFERENCE in principle to conditions 2 and 3! Light scattered by the gas (air or whatever) re-emitting photons or waves at the local c/n, travels to all observers at 'c/n', (including 'c' in space). If the observer decides to move, he creates a new inertial frame, with his plasma fine structure, and the signal changes to HIS local 'c' when it reaches him, or the glass of his spacecraft or instrument lens. This is precisely what we find! At last! It travels across the space BETWEEN emitter and receiver at 'c', as we know from all the evidence, (as I referred), but it also received at 'c' in the observers frame, as we also know from all the evidence!
Ooops, England just kicking off against Ireland for the Grand Slam!, I haven't checked the above, so do ask...
Peter
