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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hi Dan
Thanks. Though that confused me a bit! Let's take 1 more step backwards for overview.
As everything is relative; We must consider ALL motion in space wrt the local CMB rest frame. ..So.. when you say; "with the exception of cosmic rays..." ..you need to go back a step and re think. In space that 'exception' is in fact the rule!
If we're in a different background medium (gas, i.e. air, water, or an insulated' vacuum like the LHC pipe) V is measured wrt that.
And also remember ALL massive bodies (even tiny ones!) have a non-zero magnetic potential, and a fine structure, - constant at rest only!! - of charged particles, the orbiting or free electrons /photoelectrons.
Now we can start again with that rule. As Einstein said; All mass is "spatially extended". i.e. we must consider a bit of the space around matter as, inertially, part of that matter. This means by definition it does NOT move with respect to the matter. It can't, so neither can it's 'boundary' position. But the solution to your problem is; In space, the whole caboodle is ALWAYS in motion wrt the CMBR. (or vice versa - that's relativity).
Plasma is anyway supposedly 99.9% of all matter, so forget the conventional 'neutral particle' approach - it's a red herring. We're talking for instance about our ionosphere and plasmasphere, which are related to our magnetosphere, in the EARTH's rest frame. Venus is the same; see.; Echim, M., et al. Comparative investigation of the terrestrial and Venusian magnetopause: Kinetic modelling and experimental observations by Cluster and Venus Express,Planetary and Space Science May 2010.
DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2010.04.019
And yes, the greater the relative v the thicker and higher frequency the shock, which is because it has to slow down and change the em wave frequency more, which refracts (diffracts) it more. (Doppler shift - or 'Stokes/Anti-Stokes scattering PMD'- is evidence of the speed change). See the NASA Heliosperic shock, I think it's in one of my previous papers, try; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022
Light goes through a plasma cloud at c/n wrt the plasma cloud, which has a non zero n. Simple really!
This is a 3rd way, between an 'absolute space' and 'no ether'. it gives; "infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion". And who said that in 1952? - the same guy who said "Space without ether is unthinkable" - one A Einstein.
My current paper is about how this affects cosmology. Black holes are toroid 'Tokamaks' which recycle galaxies and spit them out as plasma (Quasars - jets) explaining half the issues in science! re-ionosation, Chiral polarisation etc etc etc. But also means every bit of each of us has already done the Star Treck 'beam me up' thing at up to 7c (M87) at least once, and will do again in only about 5Bn yrs. It's all about recycling!
I know that's close to what you've found, as is; That the universe and 'big whoosh' was a scaled up version (on the axis of evil), powered by the previous universe, but further, this means we may be, and have been, eternally recycled, and even that when we die, if time goes quick, the next time we wake up we'll be some other organism. - and all via science!!
You see I left out the reeally provocative bits as most might find them a bit scary! But obviously it's not a perfect system, and we both have some brain cells that didn't get totally wiped by our last re-ionisation so we remember how it works! Either that or we're nuts of course! I shouldn't have worried, few will read it and even fewer understand it, there are too many dynamic variable for most human brains.
Did that all slot into place for you? Do just ask more if needed.
Best wishes
Peter
Hello Peter,
I believe that you've addressed my questions. (I was thinking of the wave nature of matter and that was how the plasma boundary was produced).
BTW the quotes you used from both Einstein and Minkowski are absolute gems. I was never a big fan of Minkowski. I always blamed him for the block universe.
Thanks,
Dan
