2020 Vision. A Model of Discretion in Space by Peter A Jackson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you are a good person also as many here! ahahaha He is jesus , hello jesus Spoljaric and Peter is Budda.

Wel now let's take a quarck gluon plasma and let's see the light speed in a pure special relativity but if the velocities of rot are inserted......

Steve the crazzy humble arrogant

Hello Peter,

Please do not think I am picking on you. If you have an answer to the above problem, then good for you. But if you don't then you have an opportunity to strengthen your model, or to predict something different to GR. Either way you win!

Best Wishes,

Robert

Hi Robert.

Much food for though indeed. Mostly, in physics, answers are from such a different viewpoint to questions that no harmony results. I fear that here, but will first transmit on my own frequencies anyway. The conversation continued;

PJ; "I agree Albert, gravity is non zero in all inertial frames, but let's imagine ourselves 100 years in the future, and we find Galaxies have over 300Bn solar masses in their ion plasma Halo's, many kpc's deep at densities up to 10^9/cm^-3. And the Earth has a similar density plasmasphere. Do you think light could pass through these respectively at 'c' with respect to deep space, and at 'c' wrt the sun? Or would it change to the local 'c'."

AE; "Hmm, so you believe my friend Arthur is a bit of a duffer, light changes speed and curved space time is all about diffraction?"

PJ; "Well, let's just say you were right insisting Cartesian co-ordinates had to be attached to a body not used in the abstract, as there are no point particles, But the real point is that it proves your Equivalence of gravity and Inertial Mass, as particles, ions, can then condense from the ether increasingly with speed through it, representing the mass that attracts other particles."

AE "Mien Goot! That's so simple! Yes I did say space without ether was unthinkable! But! ..Will it pass the acid test?!"

PJ; "OK let's ask and find out. "Marleen.. have you got a sec to tidy the bar counter for an experiment?"

Marleen tidies the bar, PJ wets it, puts Albert at the other end and slides his beer along it at breakneck speed. Albert catches it.

PJ; "Now, ..Marlene, ..did the light going through the glass and beer take a different time to do it just because the bar was moving with respect to it, and the wavicles arrived at a faster rate?

Marleen "Of course not dumbkopft! did you never listen to Auguste the lighthouse keeper!?

AE; "Ahh' I see what you say! Unless we slide WITH the beer, light can appear to change speed both due to the 'n' of the beer AND the 'v' of the glass, so CAN be c/n plus v! Without Hendricks' exponentials, but still not actually break the 'c' limit! but of course!!, your beer is a galaxy!

PJ; "Yes, or just one moving electron. If only you could see 100 years into the future Albert, you'd probably still be brighter than most of them who may only be able to see 100 years into the past. And you were proved right, inertial mass really does = gravitational mass so a = g. I wonder if anyone in the future will have the intellect to see that!"

AE; "Ahh! but we won't be able to solve the problems of physics with the same kind of thinking that created them!"

PJ; "Who said that - Oh yes it was you, and perhaps your wisest words!. Another one for Albert please Marlene.."

If only! Peter

Herr Peter,

Ah yes Peter, but whereas you try to empirically show a = g, Robert uses his derivation of 'the Light' to show WHY a = g. Further, 'the Light' is deterministic and objective, the followers of QM will not be happy! Another beer for my friend please.

So, tell me about your holiday . . .

Cheers,

Robert