• [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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #70

      Peter,

      I think we've been scooped. I just read Dr. Christian Corda's essay and it mirrors my essay on so many of the innovative points, that I was certain he must have gotten them from me. But after reviewing his reference page, it seems he has a long history of such innovation. It's like you said on my forum, it almost makes you want to believe in quantum non-locality, for it is definitely spooky :)

      Since he has position and credentials, and his essay is much more sophisticated, it's sure to be a winner. If you get a chance, check it out and let me know what you think.

      Dan

      Edwin

      I agree they're very interesting, I covered them in an earlier paper, I'm just getting ready to shoot off to the Caribbean for a week and can't remember which, I think it was one of these two; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010 http://vixra.org/abs/0912.0041

      It's the classic Sagnac effect, but there was some nonsense about them included on wiki last year. I'll get myself up to date.

      Thanks, Best regards

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #72

      Hi Peter,

      I liked your essay very much.

      It struck me as a good balance between theory and

      physical reality.

      Don L.

      Hello Peter:

      I really enjoyed your essay. No doubt I will re-read it several more times as I continue trying to piece the jigsaw puzzle of the universe and nature together in my own head.

      Good luck!

      joseph

      • [deleted]

      • Post #74

      Dear Peter,

      Maybe this is just a bad luck. I chose some essays at random. You know, there is probably more than 100. The first one was quite easy to get. The next three impossible. Yours is the fifth and I think this time the essay is not technically correct and rigorously argued, to the degree of a published work or grant proposal as FXQi demands.

      Maybe I shall give up and stop reading the essays. Or maybe someone could recommend me something technically correct and easy?

      Walter John

      • [deleted]

      • Post #75

      Hello Peter,

      Sorry about dropping out of sight past couple of months. But as you know I am coauthoring a chapter in a book on Thermodynamics and my focus has for now been diverted to that project. This contest, however, opens another opportunity to exchange ideas. I continue to be interested about your ideas on refraction and how this can be explained by a time delay due to 'accumulation before manifestation' of energy. An idea that is central also in my thinking, as you know.

      I have a curiosity that I want to share with you. In my essay I present sound mathematical arguments and show that Thermodynamics (the Fundamental Relationship as well as the Second Law) requires that 'events' in Nature take some duration of time to occur. That physical time is in the sense of 'duration', t-s, rather than 'instantiation', t=s. An 'event' however as considered in GR is given by a set of coordinates, (x,y,z,t) where of course time in 'instantiation' t=s. This seems to me to violate Thermodynamics. And if so, wont the Cosmology that is based on GR, deeply Thermodynamical, also be false?

      Best wishes for a successful contest. I have not read it yet, but I will. Hope it does well and your views are considered by the judges. Who knows. If more of the essays that call for 'physical realism' reach the final round maybe this call will be taken more seriously by physicists.

      Constantinos

      • [deleted]

      • Post #76

      Hello Peter,

      You seek empirical falsification of 'discrete spaces'. Theorists would give you a theoretical falsification, based upon GR.

      Grab yourself a pint and imagine the following conversation with Einstein.

      Einstein: GR deals with gravitational fields according to which the velocity of light appears to vary with the intensity of the gravitational field.

      You: Based upon your logic and data from space exploration, I postulate 'local parts around "ponderable mass" as discrete regions..., within which light travels at speed c'.

      Einstein: Recall in the Black hole 'problem' the ideal solution for you to avoid tidal gravity (consistent with your inertial field) is for you to be a point. Granted this is unrealistic, hence, suppose you are larger than a point but sufficiently small enough to ignore tidal gravity, then according to GR, if you were to resist that freefall into the Black hole (experiencing g-force) then you would measure the speed of light 'locally' as greater than 299,792.458 km/s, and the greater the g-force you feel the faster the speed of light appears to you. Hence, unless your model permits you to experience g-forces, and still 'locally' measure the speed of light as c, I cannot agree with your 'discrete spaces' postulate.

      I hope you do not mind me bringing this to your attention. Perhaps you have gotten around that problem, but if you haven't then you have some 'food for thought'.

      All the best,

      Robert

        • [deleted]

        • Post #77

        No Dear Willard , he has understood that it exists some frequences relevant of universal communications.

        Now if the stars produce , perhaps the BH also but thus it is with an other logic than light and its special realtivity.I just think he searches in the false road but if he finds the good road, it is very relevant.

        Now of course it is the gravity which polarises the light and perhaps the BH implies some interesting fields correlated with the entangled spheers and THEIR VOLUMES.

        Regards

        Steve