Jason

You really need to get it clear in your mind that 'n' does NOT invalidate invariance, which was only ever of.. "light in a vacuum".

i.e. In the 1950's Feynman was in awe of Lena Hau slowing light to 35mph in BEC. It never invalidated constancy of 'c'. The bit you keep forgetting is that the 35mph in BEC is constant whether the BEC was in her lab, on a train, a plane, or the space station. Light arriving from any observers rest frame will simply change speed both; A to comply with the media's 'n', and B to comply with any relative motion of that medium wrt the rest frame. The evidence of the Doppler shift proves it has done both.

You're not alone in repeatedly forgetting that, which makes nonsense, anomaly and paradox of perfectly consistent physical results. It seems our brains are simply not well developed enough to easily hold and apply two variables at once. That's why the 'elephant in the room' is not visible to most humans for more than perhaps a few minutes at a time. Once we've thought it through repeatedly and our brains have got used to applying it, it all becomes very familiar and simple. But it won't happen without effort, and being told how it works first. I's no wonder Einstein couldn't see it.

The speed of light in a vacuum is absolutely constant LOCALLY, in ALL regions of space, which is why it is constant to ALL observers, in all inertial frames.

I really hope you can do this as it's a revelation.

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #45

Hi All ,

Good luck in this contest Peter, interesting essay.

But where are Constantinos and Georgina ?

Regards

Steve

Peter,

I've finally posted a brief pdf that I believe relates to your essay (while being based on the ideas in my essay.) Please read it through a few times and then I'd be interested in your comments.

GEM and the Constant Speed of Light

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #47

what do you say Peter,why you say that? you are a real "genius thinker physicist"and your essay is very interesting,I bother you smetimes but you are very creative also,many people I think likes reading your posts.

Don't stop dear friends, never,you are both of you, very very imaginatives and creatives.The 3 points of Jason are relevant....when the sorting of light is taken in a BH.The gravity fractalizes the light by its superimposings and fields.

Don't stop your creativity and research of truth.

Ps Jason you are right , the space and the mass and the light are purelly the same in the BEC at mu humble opinion.

Best

Steve

Edwin

First glance over looked potentially quite exciting, but a bit like hearing the excitement of a roller coaster from somewhere behind me. I turned from maths to look another way 40 years ago, I discovered much, but now can't look or think that way. (AE; "We won't solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them") So I'll have to rely on you to explain.

Did you know that naturally rotating toroids are scalable from tokamaks (sub atomic level) up to 10^9 (galactic smbholes)? I can't help thinking there's a connection, in fact I have a much better alternative for the issue of re-ionisation of hydrogen, which is also connected. (paper on the way). I'm also starting to warm more to the concept of diffraction rather than refraction, same thing but more gentle in an Ewald-Oseen extinction way, leading via the (combined?) field to QG. - and much more!

Did the point about how the gravitational potential of a body increases when in motion through the vacuum come across in my essay? (the real equivalence of Inertial and Gravitational Mass)?

I hope you can give me an analog commentary on your pdf, which I need vefore I can give intelligent comment. I'd like to understand some of the basic maths in a logical sense as I wish to adorn a paper with the odd equation (cited) to see if I can stop one being binned before it's read!

Many thanks

Peter

    Peter,

    Having worked extensively for 5 years on the C-field, I tend to forget that non-mathematical physicists sometime have a very hard time visualizing the term

    [(del) cross (vector1)=(vector2)].

    The cross product works at right angles to the vectors on either side of it, so that vector2 is orthogonal (perpendicular) to both del and vector1. And "del" is an operator that tells how things spread in space, a difficult concept on its own.

    Do you know how a line with electric current flowing through it induces a magnetic field around it? The gravito-magnetic field (the C-field) will be induced around a mass-current in like manner. But mass current, mv, is mass time velocity v, which is momentum, and although photons don't have rest mass, they aren't at rest, so they have momentum. That's what induces the C-field circulation.

    To try to get pictures in your head, go to "Magnetic Field" on Wikipedia, and click to section 5.1 in the Contents: "Magnetic field due to moving charges and electric currents". The first picture, illustrating the right-hand-rule shows the magnetic field around a current. If the arrow is the photon, the gravito-magnetic field induced will look the same.

    I am both surprised and impressed that you were able to work out the principles in your essay without much math and disappointed that you don't understand my paper. I though you'd be jumping up and down by now, because it is exactly the answer you are looking for.

    There are other aspects of the C-field interaction with photons that I'm working on now, but this paper contains the theory and ideas that you need. After you look at Wikipedia, if you have any question, let's discuss them.

    Willard may also be able to help here, but I think he's in academia, and may not want to go out on a limb about the C-field being strong enough to behave as I have described.

    In any event, I'm grateful to you for leading me in this direction, with your essay.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Edwin

    Thanks, just a quick 1st response, I'm very familiar with the mechanics. In fact it's hitting some connections spot on. Have you looked at tokamacs in nuclear physics? Induced toroids with dual dynamic rotation, including helically. I'm proposing this is scalable, (in fact not only up to 10^9 for smbholes but possibly even as a candidate for the big bang more as the big crunch').

    This, via quasars, provides the missing re-polarisation process. I'm not a massive wiki fan but I'll look on it tomorrow as a refresher and read your notes again. I've been finishing my paper of galaxy secular evolution (I have the sequence) and well past my bed time now!

    Best wishes

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #51

    Hello Peter,

    One of the problems in General Relativity is reconciling the Equivalence Principle and Tidal Gravity. So I am curious to know how you would answer the following question. Keep the answer simple, as I am not that bright.

    (This is paraphrased from a post to Jason.)

    The Equivalence Principle basically asserts that small, freely falling frames in the presence of gravity are equivalent to inertial frames in the absence of gravity. So as you fall freely, towards say a black hole, you are weightless (zero-g), and it seems as if there is no gravity in your vicinity (inertial frames). But the Equivalence Principle ignores tidal gravity, which also stretches you from head to foot and squeezes you from the sides. However, if you were the size of an ant you would experience less tidal gravity, than if you were the size of a whale. The question is, then, just how small would you have to be to ignore tidal gravity completely, that is, to consider yourself to be in an inertial frame of reference falling freely towards the black hole?

    All the best,

    Robert

      The mention of 'local realism' has taken a startling turn with Joy Christian's work here. I go into details elsewhere, but if Christian's work is correct, then all of the arguments based on so-called 'violations' of Bell's inequality are incorrect [or 'not even wrong', as Pauli would say.]

      This does not contradict Willard's comment above, but is relevant to my essay and I think to Peter's.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Peter,

      Although, as Willard pointed out above, your 'local realism' has a very specific meaning, nevertheless, I believe that Joy Christian's work [of which you're already aware] has significance for your essay, if only because his work demolishes the non-sense of non-local, non-real entanglement that has taken over physics for almost half a century.

      Since my theory is based on local realism, this would, if not providing strong support for me, at least knock down a major line of attack against me. And since my theory, as noted in GEM and the Constant Speed of Light supports one aspect of your theory, then it affects you too.

      This is a very exciting development.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Robert.

        Good question. Gravitation is a gradient. On an ideal slope a moon sized boulder would be effected the same as a tiny ball bearing.

        But an ideal slope is like maths, it's an abstraction. When we get to particle size only an ideal plane light wave can't 'scatter from itself' (interact with the quantum vacuum) so the bumps not only get in the way, they're essential to provide the diffraction for curved space time, - doppler shifting as appropriate due to the slight delay of polarisation (which is 'Stokes scattering').

        Sorry if that got complicated. But think of the Equivalence of Inertial and Gravitational mass. If a comet goes past us it will attract us more if it goes faster! Bizzare? not when you consider the amount of additional mass it has in the photoelectron cloud around it, subject to it's speed through the vacuum!

        Simple really. By the way, that's all from well established physics, but the connections haven't been spotted by 'general' mainsteam yet. Probably as they're not looking in the right directions or with overview. I have 'easy read' links on my screen i've just posted to Jason and Eckard so I'll also put them here; http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28606 http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28606

        Do let me know if that helps.

        Peter

        Edwin

        I agree, but remember, in a 9 page essay I could only give a snapshot of one aspect of the DFM. - as with your own work. Joy's treatise is far reaching but central and fundamental in proving it's basis, though not going as far up the concrete 'consequences' track as the DFM We're coming at and looking at the same mountain but from a different town, as are you. It seems to me most of the reason we're all in different places is lack of research.

        I'd like to keep exploring the connections between our approaches, as the sum of the parts.... ..and there really is a mountain to climb.

        As light reading you might also enjoy the links I just posted for Robert above. They also help falsify both of our theorems, and may help in terms of approaches.

        I am continuously excited, and am really thankful for your support, as well as often close to despair in the search for other intelligent life!

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #56

        Hello Peter,

        Thank you for the reply and please do not think me rude, but you haven't answered the question. Perhaps I was not clear enough in what I was asking, but I am at a loss to ask it any clearer.

        Anyway I see you and Dr Klingman have found common ground. Hopefully it will be a fruitful partnership for you both.

        All the best and good luck to you,

        Robert

        Robert

        Sorry. The Boulder/ball bearing analogy was supposed to explain that size shouldn't matter, as the 'slope' is the same at all scales.

        i.e. an ant and an elephant will be stretched at precisely the same rate/mm, or percentage.

        When we get down to electron size we'd have to know how gravity works. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

        Did that answer it ok?

        Peter

        PS I se I posted the same limk twice! The really good one that explains it well is here; cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/37860

          • [deleted]

          • Post #58

          Hello Peter,

          It is unnecessary for you to answer the question, but it is something for you to think about. The reason I asked it was to see how your theory copes when we pit SR and GR against one another, so to speak.

          In case you are interested, the answer I give in my essay is that inertial (gravity free) frames are fictitous, and the reason we can measure (with a certian margin of error) the speed of light as c 'locally' is that the 'g-force' we experience is negligible. This is consistent with GR.

          All the best,

          Robert

          • [deleted]

          • Post #59

          Hello Peter,

          I presume you are not the size of an electron, and even if you were you cannot presume all 'observers' are. I hope electrons have a sense of humour!

          Robert

          • [deleted]

          • Post #60

          Dear Edwin,

          I guess GEM stands for gravito electro magnetic. I didn't find it in my dictionary.

          Regards,

          Eckard

          Hi Robert

          I wish I was a bit closer to electron size!

          I agree in principle, but don't consider inertial frames gravity free.

          Many deny the SR GR issue, Einstein was succinct with; "..the aether of general relativity differs from those of classical mechanics and special relativity in that it is not 'absolute' but determined, in its locally variable characteristics, by ponderable matter."

          That is equivalent to the local variable version of my essay, which I can't believe so many struggle to find the logic and major implications of. What the DFM does is put both SR and GR on the same basis, both with a quantum mechanism.

          I use 'field' not 'frame' as Einstein specified ('rigid body' not abstract points, lines and mathematics) Perhaps dynamic frames within frames, giving infinite background frames at all scales, are just too much for most brains to conceive?

          Almost every barmaid I know has understood the speed of light through a pint of beer or plasma doesn't change if we slide it down the bar. Yet physicists mostly seem to struggle in applying it! Did you grasp the concept?

          Best wishes

          Peter

            • [deleted]

            • Post #62

            Hello Peter,

            You are a good person, and I just thought I would throw you a 'curly one' to keep in mind. If it helped clarify your own essay to you, then some good has come of it. Our essays differ on many points. GR left loose ends, which are tied in my essay, in so far as foundations are concerned.

            All the best to you,

            Robert

            • [deleted]

            • Post #63

            Hi Peter,

            You have written a provocative essay, much of which I agree with and some of which has confused me. (No offense, because I'm easily confused) You refer to the boundary of the DFM as a plasma, which has undoubtedly has optical effects, but it seems to me that a plasma would only be warranted with the motion of mass with electric charge and not neutral mass. Yet the boundary effect should not, nor do I believe that you insinuate, that the effect is not present with all matter in motion. Also, you did not specify whether the DF boundary has motion wrt to the inertial frame. It seems to me that it should. I say this because in my mind the boundary would be most prominent in a frame that approaches c wrt the CMB. I see the boundary as a result of the subsequent acceleration of the frame in order to obtain this velocity (which is an unusual velocity of massive objects in our universe with the exception of cosmic rays and the other energetic particles which you mentioned with regard to active galactic nuclei). Therefore it is my belief that the DF boundary would propagate at a velocity even wrt the inertial frame, itself. I don't believe it will effect any of your conclusions, but am I incorrect in this assumption?

            Sincerely,

            Dan