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

          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

          • [deleted]

          • Post #65

          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

          • [deleted]

          • Post #66

          Hello Peter

          I was left shellshocked by your incredible essay. It really did take a new way of thinking,(to me anyway) but I got it in the end, and it's brilliant! I susect most won't. I do see your problem, though I'm afraid I have no influence to help. i comment anyone to spend a few minutes lookijng for the pot of real gold. Very best of luck.

          I'll think more and may return.

          Judy

          • [deleted]

          • Post #67

          Hi Peter,

          I've read your essay yet again (and looked through the postings on your page) and gave you a rating of 10. I think your brilliant essay complements mine because yours has a more "scientific flavour" while mine might remind readers of a dreamer. That's not necessarily bad because Professor Timothy Ferris wrote in his 1988 book "Coming of Age in the Milky Way" that Einstein's submission of Special Relativity resembled the work of a crank, not even containing citations from the scientific literature. We have to be very grateful for the insight of scientist and editor Max Planck who, when he read Einstein's paper, knew the world had changed.

          If we could somehow combine your and my essay, I don't believe we could ever produce another Einstein but maybe we could convince some scientist/editor that the world is changing.

          Rodney

          Eckard,

          You are correct. Google "Gravitomagnetism". The first sentence in Wikipedia:

          "Gravitomagnetism (sometimes Gravitoelectromagnetism, abbreviated GEM)"

          Unfortunately Doug Sweetser also calls his theory GEM, and Fred Hoyle based his theory on a C-field that is different from mine, and there are other uses of C-field.

          So there seems to be no unambiguous way to speak of the C-field without qualification.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Peter,

          I'm happy to see that your essay is being appreciated.

          I have been looking at 'ring laser gyroscopes' and thinking that you might also be interested in these devices. They produce two counter-rotating laser beams around a closed circuit. When the circuit physically rotates, one path is effectively lengthened and the opposite shortened, with consequent interference fringes that can produce 'beats' on a photo-detector proportional to the angular rotation speed. This allows the device to function as a gyroscope for navigational purposes (used on Airbus A320 and many others).

          Also interesting is that Martin Tajmar used such a device to measure the C-field. By placing the 'ring' around a C-field dipole, one laser beam is flowing 'with' the C-field, and the other is flowing 'against' the C-field and of course the interference allows highly accurate measurement.

          Just google 'ring laser gyroscope'. I believe you'll find this interesting. Among other questions is what happens when the beams are in vacuum and one beam is effectively 'speeded up'.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman