• [deleted]

  • Post #201

Dear Peter Jackson,

I went thro' your intriguing essay often and tried to see how you have succeeded in facing the requirements of the essay contest.Although you have tried from an odd angle,finally you have not come to any conclusion.

In the photograph,I saw high speed gas gushing away from the blast (or explosion?) place and it could be as a result of shock wave emanating from collision between two white-dwarfs or plsma emitted form a black-hole or a pulsar or even a white-dwarf.The shape of the gas curve emitted in all such cases would be almost the same.

If you are too good at maths,I will give ideas on how to solve problems related to black-holes.

Best regards and good luck in the competition.

Sreenath B N.

    Peter,

    You just broke 200 comments and are 'spreading light' everywhere. Who would have thought that 100 year old special relativity could be so divisive.

    I like the way you clarify points 1 and 2 above. The issue of 'in the frame' or 'looking at the frame' certainly deserves more attention.

    It may be just that I am more engaged in this contest, but it seems to me that there are more original and worthwhile perspectives appearing than in previous contests. Certainly a lot of insights floating around. Many of these essays deserve re-reading more than once.

    And there really has developed a sense of community, although there are, as in most communities, two sides of the track.

    I appreciate that you, and Willard's early remarks, have caused me to re-think aspects of SR and to apply the C-field equation to photons. Thanks.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Edwin

    Many thanks. It's simply rewarding to see the concept of how to remove the well veiled wrong assumption of 100 years ago understood at last, by a steadily growing few with the right conceptual skills at least.

    What a roller coaster ride! I'm trying to run my practice, family and boat.. but I tell myself it will be worth it to get the solution seen, and off and running. How could I not? Your support is well appreciated and I'm glad if I've helped facilitate and falsify your own model. I too was pleased and surprised that logic is creeping back into physics with some excellent consistent essays.

    Much work will need to be done defining the qualities and properties of the field once we are allowed to see it again!

    I hope we may keep working together on this to the benefit of all, though for me it is not my day job!

    Very best of luck.

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #204

    Peter,

    Thank you for your nice comment on my essay!

    Regarding your essay: I think the observations you have taken the time to include are very important and are unfortunately overlooked most of the time. For example: what is really going on from observer O's viewpoint using a tyndall effect.

    Regarding your step-by-step fate of photon(s) when changing from vacuum to air, plasma glass, etc.. I wonder if anyone has applied this thinking to the Michelson-Morley experiment?? On the surface one might think effects would cancel anyway because the reflection devices are at both ends of the interferometer, but the fact that "new" photons are replacing old ones during the journey may have an impact.

    I hope we can all keep a conversation going even after the contest ends.

    Best of luck - Chris

      Sreenath B N

      Thank you for reading it. You said I come to no 'conclusion'. Hmmm. Perhaps my English understatement Sreenath, I am explaining what may be a paradigm moving discovery, (which I fear you may have missed!) which also shows two distinct solutions;

      1) The 'continuous' condensate must become discrete (ions) to implement change, and

      2) Space itself is divided into discrete 'blocks' or perhaps 'causal sets' of volume surrounding condensed matter and limited by diffractive boundaries.

      So without either one, the other could not exist. So not only is nature both, but I show how and why, which unveils the problem and derives SR via a quantum mechanism. Did you read the logical analysis in the post above here?

      you must be able to manipulate multiple dynamic spaces and diffracting waves in your mind to make it intuitive, which it quickly then becomes. It is difficult! If it was easy it would have been seen 100 years ago. And then thinking through the implications... they are substantial!

      I hope you have another go.

      Or once you are ready, look at the quite stunning logical conclusions in the short preprint here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

      The Photograph? - The previous analysis is (I believe) incomplete. It is a Quasar, with just the 'approaching' jet visible as the receding jet is red shifted to radio frequencies (but both jet heads are visible. A Quasar is a toroid black hole (see the other paper for a photo of another) with the jets perpendicular to the 'disk' (as our own smbh). The gravity is so intense there is much lensing or 'microlensing'. If you look around the source of the jet you will see lensed (enlarged and curved) light from stars behind, outlining the toroid curvature. It is rather large! M87's jets are many millions of light years long.

      I feel we must better use observation and empirical evidence to support theory wherever we can.

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #206

      Dear Peter,

      thanks for your kind comment. If I understand well, you propose in your well-written essay a mechanism based on the plasma wind, by which relativity emerges from quantum mechanics and optics. The "standard" relativity has been derived from electromagnetism as well, more specifically from the invariance properties of Maxwell's equations - which led to the Lorentz transformations and the Minkowski spacetime. Possibly there may be an experiment, at least a "Gedanken" one, which can exhibit differences between the predictions of your explanation and those of the "standard" SR. I think that such differences may appear if the light travels through large regions of small density of the plasma.

      Best regards,

      Cristi

        Dear Peter,

        Nothing in my essay or in my latest posts contradict any of your ideas - namely "locality/reality" as the basis of the constancy of the speed of light, and DFM as the basis for propagation of light. But these latest results, in my humble opinion, do bring clarity and light to what has in the past been mystifying.

        Among the most mystifying of physical ideas that date back to Einstein's work is the (PH) Photon Hypothesis (which makes any intuitive physical explanation of the double-slit experiment, for example, incomprehensible even to the likes of Feynman) and de Broglie's 'matter waves' hypothesis that were incorporated into Schroedinger's equation and into QM. These were plainly assumptions.

        In my first new post, "What is the Matter with de Broglie Waves?" I am able to derive the de Broglie equations following and extending previous work, and show how these can be more intuitively understood. This demystifies the de Broglie 'matter'. Furthermore, this formulation in my post now fully justifies the 'exponential of time' that I used for the local representation of energy that leads to a very elegant mathematical derivation of Planck's Law. This I had assumed (with ample mathematical reasons and arguments for that assumption).

        In the second post, "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave", I give a very simple and equally elegant mathematical proof that is we take the speed of light to be constant, then it must be true that light propagates as a wave. Thus, one of Einstein's major hypothesis (CSL) that leads to Relativity contradicts another major hypothesis (PH) that leads to QM.

        This is big! This is not "photons".

        Constantinos

        Chris

        Thanks, pressed wrong button and long detailed post lost! Precee;

        Yes. Thanks, Brilliant; Mirrors reflect light at same speed as incident light ref incident medium!!!!

        M&MX supported Stokes/Plank closely equivalent theory to the DFM, but sponsor Bell shut Michelson up on that! see here; Only false logic NEVER BEFORE RECOGNISED put Lorentz on another track (Stokes 10993 Fig13). see here; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

        The CMBR rest frame logically destroys SR as we understand it. I feel like Galileo. The SUN IS NOT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE! We need to think more carefully. It is a preferred 3rd frame. Only the DFM avoids the logical inconsistencies. AND it meets observation better, AND it uses the SR postulates. It IS SR! But an Extra Special Relativity (ESR)? with no paradoxes.

        Do let me know if you can see a better way to explain it!

        Best wishes,

        Peter

        Christi

        Thank you. Indeed all Gedankens actually do that as they produce logical results without paradox in the DFM without the LT, but do not with the LT. It also matches all empirical results, i.e. 'Lensing' delays; We've 'patched' Shapiro delays to death, even needing 'gravity wells'! but this matches all observation with no anomalies and patches.

        NASA (Dan Gezari) experimented with Lunar Laser ranging. The results were consistent with the DFM's SR NOT SR with LT. http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818v2 (A 'mainstream' denialist quickly put out a paper saying the lenses must be dusty or something, which had no logic anyway!).

        Wang has also done a number of consistent experiments, but as there's been no alternative to SR with LT UP UNTIL NOW, it's all just been ignored, and the ranks of dissidents wanting to throw out SR keep swelling. The DFM offers the perfect compromise to remove dissent, just perfect SR AND QM a bit to match.

        I posted a full train Gedanken in Tom Ray's string. He was previously disparaging, but stopped on reading it. It's passed all falsification. I've also discussed infinitely many buses with Dr Cosmic Ray! Did you read the 'Stream' one as well.

        I predicted the quadrupolar CMBR asymmetry in an early paper, and the recent result in the string above, along with others. Not one has proved wrong, and many anomalies are resolved. But will science take note? For three years I've just been ignored. Papers are rejected as they vary from current mainstream theory.

        I'm worried we may be beyond the point where ANY experiment or proven prediction will be taken note of. If it gains ground it may have to be by erosion! Unless this essay process and the super support here leads to anything.

        Venus express has just found the plasmasphere of Venus, as ours, Saturns and the suns.

        If you can think of any new experiment or prediction please do suggest it.

        (You'll find a link somewhere in my string to another viXra paper giving more extraordinary predictions, but not yet falsifiable - the most 'mainstream compliant' are in a paper currently in peer review - who knows!).

        Very many thanks. Best of luck to you to.

        Peter

        Constantinos

        Thank you. I agree all your mathematics is fully consistent with the DFM thesis. I would like to better understand the fundamental logic (which is due to my inadequate mathematics rather than logic) an am interested in your view of the Stochastic Van der Waal profile in relation particularly to the Planck Curve.

        I'd also like to ensure I've properly corrected the misuse of the term 'exponential' in the essay ref the resistance curve / LT relationship. I suspect I was trying to retain some relevance for the LT, when it may really need to be returned to Fresnel's original meaning.

        I agree it's important you get into the last 35 for assessment.

        Very best of luck.

        Peter

        Christi

        Falsification. A recent job was Atlantic weather routing advice for a round the world race boat, so I looked closer at the S Atlantic anomaly. It's the central depression 'cusp' of our plasma toroid, and getting bigger! (we're due a polarity change).

        Did you know The Hubble takes a peak of over 3,000 hits/cm^2/sec in this area? and the GPS satellites are wearing out faster than hoped due to the ion hits (sim profile to Pioneer/Voyager anomaly). In NS the vast zone between max balloon height and min orbit, (where a 'new gps' is mooted) is termed to 'ignorasphere', as we know very little about it and have ignored it.

        This gives the opportunity for a prediction; There will be a dense ionosphere, with higher electron to proton ration higher up far denser than the Hubble finds, but all in the EARTH'S reference frame. geocentric is therefore good, as the cusps are problematic. These will grow and move more, with the magnetic poles. Our kids would be well advised not to sunbathe as much as us. But mass extinction is unlikely even if the em field collapses in a pole change (there have been hundreds) as the ions will largely remain! If we all die? I was wrong.

        I've logged it here as I'm certain no-one else will publish or record it! it may also give a chance to check for the scattering delay/shift rate gradient the DFM predicts.

        (We overtook quite a bunch and moved to the van in the S Atlantic staying East)

        Thanks, best wishes.

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #213

        Peter,

        there seem to be many possibilities to test your ideas. I think that it's a good idea to never stop challenging our theories and trying to find the best possible explanation, no matter how good these theories may seem.

        Best wishes,

        Cristi

        • [deleted]

        • Post #214

        Peter, it is good to see you in such a string position as we reach the last day of the community vote. Your ideas about discrete space and plasma are very original and nicely illustrated with real observation images. Good luck for the final round.

          Christi

          Good point. Isn't that what Einstein & Feynman said too. Could you have a quick word with Tom and Lawrence!

          Best of luck

          Peter

          Phil

          Thanks for your note. Glad you got to read it. I didn't want to mix the conceptual with this at this stage, but, ..(as even a conscientious obejector can be a medic!) considering the language of yours, is it possible you could look at mine in terms of a Q-net (as a fibre optic) and quantum registers QUBITS 'lumped' together - "wanderland", or right down to individiual bits ('balls S^3') I believe SR and LT link to this picture via QC=SR, "2+2=1+3" (Hermitean picture or 'Klein correspondence').

          If you're impressed with that don't credit me, you should read Lucian Ionescue's brilliant essay, his words and maths have been a bit overlooked and should be way up the list. I only saw it yesterday!

          Let me know if that computes. You should hopefully spot that along with the other group of excellent consistent essays here, each giving a different glimpse, it is actually paradigm shifting!

          Great to see you on a late charge. Momentum is everything! (including a = g).

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #217

          Dear Peter,

          I reread your excellant essay. I think that Physics is a bilingual thought process involving both language and mathematics. Sadly enough, most people fall on one side or the other and don't do a good job of balancing language and mathematics. As a mathematics-conscientious-objector yourself, you do a good job of introducing just enough mathematics (such as the index of refraction and frame-of-reference transformations) to tie into physics formality. From a language perspective, your essay was comparable to other great language presentations, such as Julian Barbour's and Tom Ray's, and I enjoyed your pictures.

          There was a point near the beginning of your essay that confused me slightly. You said "As it slows down it shifts slightly to the blue (as Rayleigh scattering also turns the sky blue)." Putting these two very different phenomena together as if they are related is confusing. The light is blue-shifted as it approaches a stronger gravitational field (the Earth's vs. space), but Rayleigh scattering removes more blue than red light because blue wave-lengths are shorter than red wave-lengths, and therefore have a shorter interaction distance in air.

          Figure 1 does look a lot like a hot, fresh doughnut plus a bow shock (my wife, daughter and I ate breakfast at Krispy Kreme Doughnuts the other day - I don't eat there often because I'm usually watching my calories, but it is fun every once in a while). I finally put together a paper model of a lattice-like torus with Buckyball symmetries. Now I'm ready to cut up a couple of soccer balls...

          You quoted Minkowski's "endlessly many spaces". If each bus is a different "space", or a different frame of reference, and the photons get on and off of buses with different local speeds, then this can explain your view of Relativity. My math background (I only minored in Math, but most PhD Physicists are exposed to lots more Math) wants to use "delta" notation to represent this, and then convert it into a differential and/or integral equation. It would probably look a lot like the Principle of Least Action.

          You say that your model does not require an "aether". I agree that the Classical aether is dead, but I wonder what effect the "vacuum" or "Dirac Sea" have on large-scale "continuous" effects. In the case of the speed of light, we have c=1/SQRT(eps*mu) where eps and mu are physical properties of the "vacuum". I'm not sure of the implications regarding a vacuum-like "new-aether" - see Constantin Leshan's essay.

          Good Luck in the contest & Have Fun!

          Dr. Cosmic Ray

            ANALOGY

            Below is a response in the 'Time Machine' blog, where neither Georgina's or my equivalent theses on reality were clear enough for Tom. I thought it worth repeating here as recognising the weakness with current through basis is important.

            "If you (and dozens of others) are flying in spacecraft beyond the moon on various vectors watching the earth go by, and see flashes of light go through the atmosphere in the same direction as the orbit. Who on earth believed it was right to have to say we'd need a Lorentz Transformation to stop it looking to us like it went faster than 'c'??

            Do you really believe that? If so please give your logical analysis of why it's needed?

            An who wins the argument between the moving observers about how fast it went?"

            So do we imagine the flash of light' really gives a damn who is up in space and which way they're going? All light signals reach them via scattering at 'c' anyway.

            Imagine we have a 30,000km road across the US, with street lights, switched to all come on, from one end to the other, within 0.5secs. Saying we need the LT is like saying this breaks the laws of physics! (many of which incidentally are hereby repealed so we can finally get physics moving along one more).

            We can call it the DFM, Extra Special Relativity, or whatever we wish. It is SR, with the postulates and a quantum mechanism but without the paradoxes. Otherwise called 'nature'.

            Are some still not yet able to see it, even when spelled out?

            Peter

              • [deleted]

              • Post #219

              Dear Peter,

              Are the Lunar Laser ranging results by Gezari http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818v2 inconsistent with Van Flandern's LR? So far you ignored my hint to him. I am also not yet sure whether or not LT is trustworthy. See my reply today to Georgina in my thread 833.

              Regards,

              Eckard

              Hi Peter,

              Congratulations, you are today twice mentioned in the front page, I think you deserve it,

              You and me are each on another side of the earth so we are moving each with a velocity of 450m/sec around the center of the earth as you are on the other side earth we are moving each about 900m/sec, that would be true if we were moving in paralel lines , as we are both "locals" the difference remains the ca.450m/sec., so our movement (relative to the center of the earth) is local and the locality is the earth, we don't feel any movement.

              relative to the solar system our velocity is about 30km/sec.

              relative to the heart of the milky way it is 210 km/sec.

              relative to the origin of the universe, wich is in my opinion 5.39121x10^-44sec after a virtual zero, we move at 600km/sec towards the constellation Leo (New Scientist 19 february 2001 , Roger Highfield)

              and still both of us are locals, our consciousness tells us we are not moving, perhaps relative to another universe we are moving at 7c who knows,

              This also means that we need no eather (Ray !), because when you introduce in Peters theory the eather, then you will always meet an eather bow shock which occurs only when one locality encounters another, we could view our universe as a whole and then when meeting another universe we could encounter an eather bow shock, but only the kind of eather that is meant as observing our universe as a locality, the eather of the other Universe will be of different constitution. In this universe the abovenamed eather (locality eather) does not interfere with minor localities it only interferes with other eathers of other Universes.

              In this way Peter I think we can make a definition of every kind of "locality", each having its own limits, wher internal c=c, when a bow chock occurs we meet another locality. Please corrigate me when I am wrong.

              I also studied Edwin Klingman's essay (and his first one that I still digesting), he also reacted positive on my essay. I really I think that combining your ideas could solve a lot of problems in physics, again thank you for being the first one to read my essay (I am learning the tricks) and to comment it so positive. On the last day of rating I feel very proud that I could share my ideas for the first time with so many thinkers around the world.

              Very good luck Peter, but I think your chances are great,

              Wilhelmus.