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

pjackson

Ray

Ah! ..you'd already scored it then. Shame! No worries, I liked yours anyway as it has real ideas and wasn't just another 'my personal take on history' resume so the boost is nothing to do with the compliments, which I know were just you being a really nice bloke!

Rayleigh? Brilliant man his Lordship, did you know he did it all without maths? A bit incoherent and scattery, but he knew the fourth power of waves! Yes, I agree, but via the DFM we find there's more to it than that - to start with it seems it might be the plasmaspheric ions not air, and part of the PMD process! You're right, I should have explained, but it was cut out by Occam to make the limit. It's in another paper on PMD and harmonics, which explains why rainbows invert the moment they're out of our sight (I kid you not!).

Fig 1 is the shock not the donut. As NO-ONE FOUND THE HIDDEN BLACK HOLE I'll reveal it. It's in the HH34 ESO Fig. Look out (think BIG!) from the source of the jet/s. You will find some curved light, and one large bright splash. That (my prediction is) is all lensed light from behind the black hole. It's actually as big as more Krispy Kreems than you and I could eat! The outer bit has been termed the 'dust cloud', but it's a toroid of helical twin axis rotating energy. This one should be slowing down soon as it's run out of Krispy Kremes to eat and spew out!. You may see why I struggle to reconcile it with Bucky's vandalised footballs.

When I said the DFM doesn't 'require' "ether", I went on to hint that actually, once we get past the mainstream 'belief' problem (around 2020 unless we find someone with both authority AND courage!), we might find that as it 'allows' something similar we can have it back as the whole of physics and cosmology can then work properly with a unified field. I used to quite like the Dirac Sea, (but which way up?) But if Edwins C field pans out that does the job just fine, essentially the (dis)continuum or 'condensate'.

Did I mention it resolves the re-ionisation issue too? There's a link to a paper in Phil's archive somewhere above.

See below for another analogy I just gave Tom. It's all about needing holistic rather than self centric thinking. The sun is not the centre of the universe! (I'm moving to a nicer house in case I'm arrested!).

Now, ..about that new book I mentioned....

Peter

pjackson

Genius from Georgina

I had to post this brilliant response from Georgina Parry to my agreeing with Tom that (current) QM is not intuitive (except I blame our current intuition).

G; "I do not agree that it is counterintuitive, when interpreted as I have outlined on this thread. Current logic has been false because there has been an assumption of an actual concrete object distributed across a multiverse or a pervasive quasi reality. The hypothetical supposition of states is purely theoretical and so does not qualify as in any way real. Though due to sequential change in foundational reality an object has a sequence of spatial positions and the one that is detected depends upon when the data is received. The sequence is purely historical and the object only has one existence and is not smeared across space or distributed across a multiverse.

So Re. a) Logic has been false, as it was based on a false assumption, leading to counterintuitive outcome.

Re. b) Intuition -is- inadequate, on its own but it can provide insight which then needs to be evaluated for usefulness. Allows one to readdress a)

Re c) Our understanding of quantum physics has been inadequate, because of a)

When readdressed it is no longer inadequate or counterintuitive."

(Back now to PJ); - I stand corrected and concede entirely. - OK, Perhaps it's saying essentially the same as I was, -that our understanding has been 'incomplete'-, but says it in a far better and more specific way. The DFM of course does also change our understanding of QM 'in operation' slightly, (scattering in plasma) but only to even better comply.

All mathematicians & quantum computists see also above and Dr Ionescue's essay.

Peter

pjackson

Wilhelmus

Yes. You're using the correct Holistic not Self-Centric viewpoint. (my Ref[25]).

Apparently Western Europeans and US Students are the worst at this!! Asked 'Where is the truck?" The self centric response may be "around 300m away, behind me, to the South, moving away." The proper (Holistic) view would be; "On the road beside the red building moving south." This is the 'Lab Frame' error. Lodge made it (1893 Fig 13) and we've kept on repeating it. There is only ONE VALID FRAME for measurement, the SAME frame as the object.

The first respondent may have been on any of 10 moving buses, so the answer tells us nothing of the truck. SR assumes that doesn't matter, to explain constant light speed. Now that is otherwise explained (by the c/n of plasma- ion gas/shocks) we need to recognise it DOES matter, and all paradoxes and anomalies evaporate!

However! This shows your logic below fails. Remember Einstein said "Space without Ether is unthinkable" (Leiden 1921). There may indeed be a continuum reference frame, (CMBR) except it's a DIScontinuum, precisely as Einstein predicted;

(Gothenburg 1923); "There are then an infinite number of inertial frames which are in uniform translational motion relative to each other, and hence there is also an infinite number of mutually equivalent, physically preferred states of motion. Time is absolute, i.e.independent of the choice of the particular inertial frame; it is defined by more characteristics than logically necessary, although - as implied by mechanics - this should not lead to contradictions with experience. Note in passing that the logical weakness of this exposition from the point of view of the stipulation of meaning is the lack of an experimental criterion for whether a material point is force free or not; therefore the concept of the inertial frame remains rather problematical."

All the DFM has now done is solved that problem. If only AE has space travel to hep he'd have done it himself.

Peter

Edwin Klingman

Peter,

Good news on the C-field front!

The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to light passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.

The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.

From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsibnle for observable effects.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

This is an interesting approach to looking at the fundamental discreness and relate it to continuous processes from the space-time phenomenon. A good essay. The concept of many spaces is easily grasped if one looks at the digital-analog problem not simply from quantity-time space but from quantity-quality-time space. Each ontological object is defined by quantity, quality where time may be viewed as neutral. The same object can be viewed in many spaces that are generated by qualitative motion that will help to define the nature of the space that is available to the scientist. There are therefore many spaces span by qualitative transformations. In physics, quantitative motion requires an implicit or explicit assumption of constancy of quality of the objects under critical inquiry. Any equation of motion under classical laws of thought is unstable and meaningless if constancy of quality is not assumed. Similarly, the understanding and the use of the methodological discretness require this constancy of quality. The result of the use of this constancy of quality and the classical laws of thought simply provides a model of epistemic reality that must be checked against ontological reality. It this unsurenes that lead Max Planck to discuss the problem of exact science as not properly braced with an undisputable methodological principle. Contradiction and paradoxes arise when the mathodoligical discretness runs into epistemic peoblem at the presence of simultaniety of quantitative and qualitative motion. I would like to conclude that the approach taken by Peter may help the current works on energetics, synergetics and complexity theory.

KOFI KISSI DOMPERE.

pjackson

KOFI

Thanks for your kind response. The observer frame question throws up the critical difference that a Doppler frame transition from A to B (from 'ahead' of the frame B motion) viewed from frame A gives just a wavelength reduction, whereas viewed from frame B it reduces the wavelength but also increases the frequency.

This gives E = f*lambda, to confirm the the law of conservation of energy, as well as c = f*lambda, to conform the the SR postulates.

That is NOT however true of the 'APPARENT NOT REAL' picture from frame A.

All the time we insist on the naive philosophy that what we observe from another inertial frame is reality (that we can measure no matter what our relative motion), then Physics will remain in the dark ages!

Peter

[deleted]

Dear Peter,

I try to be discrete about my scores, but I gave you a good score today, and I don't think it lifted your overall ranking much (you already had so many good scores).

Have you seen a double rainbow? The colors are reversed and dimmer but still in the visible frequency range.

I could live with Galileo's fate - it was much better than Giordano Bruno's.

Isn't it worth sacrificing a couple of inexpensive Soccer balls for the greater good?

Regarding the next book - It is difficult to end a book when you still have good ideas...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

[deleted]

Dear Peter,

I have read your wonderful article about recycling nature of the universe and that is the truth. One who fully understands this truth is immortal and lives eternally. I am including the link to my essay here, so that people who like your work can see what I had to convey as well.

Theory of everything

I wish you all the best in your pursuit of the truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

[deleted]

Peter,

The object you are hiding must be in the protostar photo....with a jet that long it must be the TBH you mentioned, but can such large objects be also like remnants of the small and we are the witnesses of the tiny object at cosmological proportions?

In your essay I was most curious about the idea that pressure only affected amplitude and not frequency. Pressure is indeed our enemy. Personally, I think the Navier Stokes equations will always blow up and that there is indeed a mass gap. That mass gap registers at the media model you incorporate into your essay. It is my suspicion that pressure also affects frequency but we are always in the wrong places and times so far to minutely measure this. LISA might change this?

pjackson

Michael

Well worked out. But did you identify the lensed light betraying the Black Hole's outline?

We must define the meaning of 'pressure' in more detail to validify our generalisations. We have missed something VERY important in present science, as I mention above;

When a light signal in medium A enters a new medium B, moving at v, we observe (from A) a different wavelength.

The light speed also changes (c/n), but, before we start thinking about the LT to stop it exceeding 'c' when we add v (medium) consider; An observer in medium B will also see a FREQUENCY change! This validates the SR postulates and Law of Conservation of energy (both c and E = f*lambda.)

This is NOT TRUE from the viewpoint of observer A, as that is now not a valid observer frame from which to measure the phenomena within medium B.

The reasons for introducing the LT are REMOVED. Light scattered from B to A does max. 'c' anyway. The SR postulates can now be met without paradox or the many anomalies that are thrown up.

Are the powers of logic or visualisation of the majority of humankind really not yet adequate to comprehend this?

Peter

pjackson

PARADIGM SHIFT

A quick example and test for all re the post above;

I think it's been rather missed that this, the DFM, is precisely the paradigm shift we've been searching for to remove the rift between QM and SR, and all the anomalies.

I am a little nonplussed. Hmm, but, as an example; should I not be less unsurprised ? ..as this is simply one short step beyond most brains natural capability!

Peter

Do please comment!

[deleted]

Hello Peter,

Well now that the voting is done it looks like you are going to make the cut.

Congradulations. Just wanted to let you know I still think your essay is the best and hope to see you as one of the winners. I did think the ratings would have been higher across the board. You science guys are tough.

Pete

pjackson

Steve

Many thanks for your support. Sorry, I'd missed many of your interspersed comments, it was all a bit frantic with new ones!

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Walter

Thank you. The rigorous argument is only as far as space allowed.

In any advances in physics there must be differences with the older established understandings, otherwise no advance would ever be made!

I've pointed out herein one mistake in there ref the term 'exponential', and explained to Ray re his query on Rayleigh scattering, where the PMD is actually in the ionosphere not the 'air' as Rayleigh assumed, and also more complex - so my mention in not technically incorrect. Unfortunately no space here to explain that fully, but the paper including it is due for publication. See reply to Ray below.

Technical is unfortunately not 'easy' if you don't have the required knowledge. Note I left all the Quantum Computing angle out, though referred below (14th). If there are any other points do ask.

Peter

[deleted]

Peter

Much appreciated, thank you. I'm strictly not a 'science guy' but yes it's tough! look at this;

I've had an extraordinary 40 different bloggers, and 56 scores! (not to mention public ones).

35 bloggers were authors and ALL POSITIVE and supportive. Over 50% saw the answer!

Let's use logic to analyse the stat's;

Many said they'd given mine 10, indeed some, like Prof Ionescue and another read it very late and kindly did so without even messaging here.

So, 1st approximation is say about 33 original votes, at average just say 7.5. = 247.7

Mine was 5th before the last day. I went to bed with over 4 hrs to go.

On top of the two 10's there were around 21 more votes to make 56. Each would have had to have scored it just 1 (total say 285) to drag the average back to the 5.1. shown !!

I't may be considered none of those '1's were really valid in terms of essay content. It's probably the same for most, though I'd scored many around mine earlier and properly. An interesting idea may be to remove ALL the last minute '1' scores and compare THAT result!. Yes, that's tough, but it's really just all very silly. (Lucky I don't do maths really!)

The really important point confirmed here is the one shown up in my essay,; That science currently seems quite happy to use invalid data for it's analysis. (Write to your senator?!)

That's what's overdue for change, and why I have to be here.

Thanks again and very best wishes with your work.

Peter

[deleted]

Peter,

Your assessment is probably very accurate and I also find it very humorous.

When I first started reading essays I started to try and rate them and after a few I decided I was going to go digital and just vote high or not at all. My particular philosophy was to try and identify essays I thought should be in the final review and give them all 9 or 10. I figured that was the best way to maximize my influence on the competition. If I didn't think it was appropriate to the finals I didn't vote on it. What purpose does it serve to rate someone low? In what way does that reflect a supportive spirit?

The motivation for rating low, particularly at the last second, is obvious. I guess there are alot of people who take this stuff very seriously.

Of course I view a painting as just a painting. It has no more or less value than what you give it, and its true value is personal and only lies in the process of creating it.

And so I wish you good luck in the future. I never really commented specifically about your essay so I will leave you with this final thought for future investigation. Since you know you have to understand your measuring device when collecting data, does a clock really measure time?

Pete

James Hoover

"Steinhardt!?.. dammit! Well they do say there's "nothing new under the.. sun?" ..and I thought universe recycling was a completely new idea (/discovery)! Well I darn hope galaxy recycling is. Actually I'm pretty sure it'll prove not to be. I must look him up, I assume 'Endless Universe' is a book."

Peter,

Not being immersed in your esoteric world, I was slow to realize I was being mocked. I served well as a patsy.

Jim

pjackson

James

Not at all! Just my humour- but I was serious. I hadn't read 'Endless Universe', so I got it immediately, I was also interested in co-author Perimeters Neil Turok's view. Thanks for flagging it up.

I got to the recycling chapter this week (I'm reading 3 at once as usual!) and started reading about branes. Well I have to tell you I've been braned brainless in recent years. Another string theory - you keep delving deeper and deeper looking for the substance and you realise you've ended up back where you started but tied up in 13 dimensional knots. I decided I might even play my trump of 32 dimensions, then I did a drawing with 33, so I realised it would be infinite and went elsewhere!

Anyway, my philosophical basis are research (empirical) logic and falsifiability. I have the most open of minds, but if I can't bring it back to fit with observation it's dropped.

And I really did like your essay, and comments. Many thanks.

Peter

James Hoover

Peter,

Thanks for responding. I might be too sensitive or cynical at my advanced age.

Jim

Dan Benedict

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your nice message on my forum. I have to admit being a little nervous toward the end, since it seemed like my essay was always "on the bubble" and there was a lot of fluctuation in the ratings right up to the cut off. How about Jason Wolfe's late charge to get in under the wire. I didn't see that coming, he seemed to come from nowhere. Good for him though.

The community scoring in general was a lot lower, across the board, than I had ever imagined. Still, I feel honored to get my essay before the judges. Maybe, I can squeak out an HM.

Best of luck in the next round,

Dan

pjackson

Dan

You deserved it. I was gobsmacked by Jason as well, (I normally am) It must have been his prototype hyperdrive.

I ran it through the sausage machine and actually have a theory. Everyone was doing much better til the last few days. Because Jason was a bit out of it and is such a nice straight honest bloke (worth a mint!) no-one picked on him. Then when most were machine gunning all round them with 1's (see my note above.) Jason got missed, so they all dropped around him.

I don't expect Brendon to comment, but the DFM quantum computer says it was relativity i.e. as much others going down as Jason going up! It's all about understanding relativity and inertial frames properly to remove the paradox.

I intend to read yours again as I high marked you, (and may have even admitted it at the time Tom!) but my mind can only hold 20 essays and names together at a time (lol). I seem to remember there was one issue I wanted to discuss, but I seem to have mislaid that Qbit!

Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »