Peter
If the standard model has never been aesthetic for you,can you comment following articles?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp
http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm
http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm
All the best
Yuri
With 300 Posts, there is even still a vanishinly small possibility that you will see this.
Therefore hello again Dr. Jackson and wonderous essay please see my thourough commentary on my own thread, which has an Order of Magnitude leass posts!
To be as cryptic as needed: it is my skeptical concern that the sense with which you misspelled Piers Morgan (On a Pale Horse--read it as a teenager--also wondrous) was intentional and a device of eliciting verbiage. How do you respond? heh
Lol! Yes, we all have to laugh at our common ignorance, we'll probably all do a "I told you so" as soon as it's nailed and understood in detail and focus. A stark contrast to the fuzzy picture we currently have, which we -think- is clear..It'll be a like a new flat screen tv in HD!
Alan
Tommy
You did indeed spot my counterfeit triple entendre Fraudian slip. But, though educated to beyond PhD, I am not a Dr so please call me Peter. I repeat the thanks given in your string for your kind words;
"your essay was Magnificent. withdraw it immediately rewrite for Publication, and submit as an AstroPhysical model"
Thank you for your kind comment, which I shall frame for my wall, post to Peers Morgan for his review. With typical scientific anticipatory plagiarism I have indeed taken your good advice and been roundly and consistently rejected. Indeed Florin has just informed me in the Blog Dept (the string about the essay competition is good value) that apparently is it very difficult to get something accepted by 'Nature'. Florin has read it twice but not yet understood it. I had hoped winning here may encourage the chap in charge of science to take note. ..Hey Ho. By the way..who is he anyway?
Yet I am a tenacious type Tommy. As the DFM is quite a powerful weapon, and seems to fire magic bullets, I pointed it at a high profile astronomy problem, which it resolved immediately, and the paper was accepted for peer review! (The rejection letter is actually now overdue!)
If you'd like to have a go with it be my guest, just think of a high profile subject for headline story and we'll see what it can do. If you haven't seen this yet you may enjoy it;
I'm not actually convinced theoretical physics can now progress any more. We may be entrenched a bit too deep in the rut! What do you think?" (edited)
Best wishes
Peter
Dear Peter,
In my thread 833 you pointed me to a paper. I looked into it as to find data of measured velocity in excess of c according your claims. I only found values mentioned up to 500 km/s measured by means of (perhaps not relativistic) Doppler effect, while c roughly amounts 300 000 km/s. Errare humanum est. Why did you not yet reply and corrected me?
Regards,
Eckard
Eckard
Sorry, to correct you; See Fig 5 caption, and AGN jets. (approx 7c). Also Ref to Blazars; 'ultrarelativistic'. (last page). But most importantly, the MEDIUM they move within. All this even after the attack by the thought police.
Full reply plus yet another reference on your string.
Best wishes
Peter
I read your paper and would like to know your opinion about the conventional interpretation of the astronomical data.
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/homework/superlu
minal.pdf
seems to be a simple version of a geometric argument for apparent superluminal motion using very simple, standard physics/math. What is wrong with their geometrical argument?
Andy
Dear Peter
I think that the experiments late Stefan Marinov contain answers to your questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Marinov
All the best
Yuri
Peter
I send to you e-mail about Marinov basic results of experiment (PDF)
Yuri
Yuri
Thanks. I hope I don't end up like Marinov. I've looked over the paper and it didn't all come together for me 1st time. I need time to get my head round it. I'm also not convinced it's entirely consistent with the DFM, which, in it's Stokes/Plank 'Full Ether Drag' guise, was the only theory consistent with the Michelson Morley result anyway!
Logically, it only takes the pure fact that light will reflect off a mirror at 'c' wrt the medium, rather than 'c' wrt the mirror if moving, to prove the incorrect assumption of SR incorrect anyway. This has been done with the laser lunar ranging experiments (see my NASA references).
Peter
Andy
Good question, and it perfectly demonstrates my point about our willingness to abandon logical rigour (or even BASIC logic) on the alter on mathematics. We simply forget logic and trust meaningless numbers. Yes. the numbers work fine, and do prove something, but bear little relation to reality! - by the same token as you can prove anything with statistics. Let's test your logic with the falsities of the 'solution';
1). It is only one case. In cases where the jet vector is close to 90 degrees it is inapplicable, and indeed indeed where receding it is the opposite! - the jet will appear slowed by the exact same amount. As almost ALL galactic (smbh) Quasar jets have apparent superluminal core pulses the orientation in space could not be anything like random compared to the Milky Way.
2). Spectroscopy can tell us relative speed without having to rely purely on apparent rate of lateral transit. There are some better coloured cross sections around than the one I posted for Eckard.
3). The Initial 'assumptions' say it all. We are supposed to ignore any motion of the emitter or observer, yet we are told space is expanding!, so effectively 'd' is increasing, i.e. either the emitter or receiver (or both) are receding quite quickly. This has a very significant effect on the results! Just add redshift z=6.5 to the equation and see what happens!!
In fact with a max of just short of 8c the 'real' apparent speed is likely to be nearer the order of 4c, but of course, like the centre of a stream viewed from the bank, the ions are only doing 'c' wrt their neighbours, which are only doing 'c' wrt theirs, etc. etc to the outer 'incentric' collimated layer, which does the same speed at the jet head, 'c' wrt the ambient medium.
Astronomers and physics still use the illogical 'maths' Oxford professor Charles Dodgson was parodying when he wrote is book "Alice in Wonderland". Can you now understand the issues and real solution?
Peter
Gentlemens
I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg
http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm
http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm
Yuri Danoyan
Yuri
Thank you.
I have followed all your links. I agree with much therein, but they don't have the magic bullet explaining CSL to give them the power to shift a paradigm. This is in the DFM. Please ask if you don't understand how it does it.
Anyway, I've now had a word with the man in charge of physics and managed to persuade him the current fools have it all wrong, so he's sent an edict out to change it, insisting all old text books are now burnt or returned. It should be appearing in all the journals this week. The 'New Scientist' scooped it and published ahead of the rest last week 26th March, see headline "Start from Scratch" He's told all professors and editors they'll loose their jobs by June if they don't get themselves up to date by then and stop teaching and publishing all the nonsense.
Ahhh.. we can all dream!
If you'd like to borrow my magic bullets you're very welcome. Just point at any problem you wish and fire. Throw a problem in the air if you wish me to show you how it works. Or if you know any geniuses who can knock it into something that looks like mainstream put them on to me. Mostly dissidents are one man crusades, completely useless to form a winning army from!
Best wishes
Peter
NOVEL PREDICTION CONFIRMED Post to Eckard, repeated here.
Eckard
As this concerns sound I thought you might like it.
A novel prediction of the DFM has just been proven correct; Sunlight can carry sound significantly faster than Mach1.
This is equivalent to the DFM explanation of apparent superluminal jets. This is anyway, (apparently against your insistence), already proven by the fact that on Concorde, at Mach2, sound and em waves do go forward as well as backwards, indeed even reputedly at the same speed each way wrt the jet!
I have watched Concord fly many times, with light inside it, and can promise you that, from my reference frame, the plane does NOT appear to contract when the lights are on, so the light is certainly moving superluminally from MY frame, (because mine and all other -non local- frames are invalid for measurement!) i.e. No LT needed.
I thought you may have finally understood this from my last post, but have yet to find a reply.
The Sunlight experiment confirms that our ideas about transmission of both are simplistic and archaic, and that they are related (via 'scattering'.) It was filmed live by the BBC, with a group of physicists. It was 'rough science', using two large bean cans, with a mirror fixed to the base of can 1, reflecting sunlight to the base of can 2 some way away. Speak into can 1. With the mirror covered nothing is heard at can 2. When light is reflected accurately it's carried almost instantaneously to can 2 and heard clearly. So much for old science!
Peter
Dear Peter
I would like reminding Freeman Dyson quote:
"It seems to me that only two things could have action
In fact be disastrous for the future of physics. One of them
realized would be if we could resolve all major
unsolved problems. That would be a real disaster, but I do not afraid what can happen in any foreseeable future.
Second disaster caught up to us if we had to fight for the chi-
simplicity would be so isolated themselves from the problems of real life that no one of gifted and dedicated science students did not wish to engage in physics. This second danger is very real to me."
Freeman J. D y s o n , The Future of Physics, Phys. Today 23 (9) (1970).
New Measurement of the Earth's Absolute Velocity with the Help
of the "Coupled Shutters" Experiment
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-
05.PDF
Hi Peter,
Sorry to change the subject a bit, but I remember you talking about a vortex lattice, if I'm not mistaken. I came across the same words again in this Winterberg link with an accompanying diagram which I found intriguing. The thing is, I was modelling the field lines of a magnet in a similar way to Descartes in 1644 as it turns out and found the diagram inspirational. Descartes should have modelled the gravitons/anti-gravitons travelling in straight lines of course with the resultant force becoming the observed field lines in iron filings. This gives a good agreement but not a perfect one. The field lines extend further out from the centre of the magnet than anticipated with this simple adjustment. A solution is to use the Inclination Hypothesis i.e. that the gravity field is stronger on the plane of rotation of a celestial body, and incorporate it into the model to resolve this problem. This change of axis of the nucleons through 90 degrees towards the centre from each of the two ends is shown in the diagram attached.
I suspect you don't know what I'm talking about, but if you do, is this something that relates to your version of a vortex lattice diagram??
Kind regards,
AlanAttachment #1: 4_Simple_Dipole_Magnet.jpgAttachment #2: 1_Axis_Change_Possiblity.jpg
Peter,
I've created a new simple model of the proton and neutron which you may be interested in. See attached. The U-shaped proton will have the effect of bending the base quark into a lens shape. This will focus the graviton/anti-graviton emissions into a particle, the electron, which will then continue to travel outward as a discrete unit due it's new configuration.
This experiment doesn't require any novel predictions" of DFM or any other new "theory". It simply illustrates the fact that information (in this case speech) can be transmitted by amplitude modulation of a light beam. The light beam isn't "carrying" the sound - at the transmitter end the sound vibrations on the foil mirror deflect the light beam which in effect amplitude-modulates the light and the variations in intensity have to be detected by a light sensor (eg a photo-diode) at the receiver end and demodulated back into sound with headphones or speakers. Obviously the signal is transmitted at the speed of light not the speed of sound. This is no different, in principle, from radio or microwave communication or data transfer by optical fibre (although the modulation and demodulation schemes and means will be different in detail). Information transmission (including speech) by electromagnetic waves has been demonstrated since the 1890s. I carried out a very similar experiment to the Rough Science one but using a laser beam rather than sunlight as a simple exercise in lab work as a first year undergraduate 40 years ago. This stuff is elementary and fully understood. Old science indeed!
As for the nonsense about Concorde, of course sound waves inside it propagate forward even when it's flying at Mach 2 because sound propagates at its characteristic speed with respect to the medium, in this case air, which, inside the fuselage, is at rest with respect to the fuselage. The measured speed of sound depends on the motion of the observer relative to the medium. Light however is different in that its measured speed is always independent of the speed of the observer.
Finally, I am astonished that you think that you could observe Lorentz contraction of Concorde. Mach 2 is 680m/s, the speed of light is 300,000,000m/s so the Lorentz contracted length (sqrt(1-v2/c2)) at Mach 2 is 0.9999999999975 of the length at rest which, since Concorde is 62 meters long, represents a Lorentz contraction of 0.00015 microns or about 1.5 Angstroms (just slightly more than the diameter of a hydrogen atom). (At Mach 2, Concorde's length increases by about 15cm due to thermal effects - which effect is a billion times greater than the Lorentz contraction at Mach 2).
All these are baby mistakes that you are making and yet you are constantly contemptuous of professional physicists. It might help to learn some elementary physics.
Alan
You lost me with that last bit. I saw what you were getting at in the 2nd fig, and ..perhaps translated to 3D as a toroid, but I visualise a helical field around the toroid 'sectional tube' as it rotates, indeed two opposing polar helical fields, as a scaled down AGN (smbh)/tokamak. There are three rotations in all as a torus has two axis and two directions round the 'tube'.
What you describe sunds like an option, But I don't remember the context I was talking about vortex lattice, and tend to shy away from particle physics, due mainly to it's unfalsifiability and the lack of intution of the standard model, which I haven't yet bought. Sorry I can't help more than that.
Peter
