• [deleted]

  • Post #81

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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #82

    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

    PJ; "Yes, I agree that Robert does this and 'why' is also important, as I assume is the correct mathematics, so on reflection it must be of more equal worth than mine so I shall return a 10.

    My holiday? .. a large and beautiful piece of nature, fought over for over a century by two great powers, but both too far from a solid basis, so had to agree to an unhappy partition, until in the end Local Reality, those who were originally enslaved, threw them out and gained possession. But it was a hard fight! The old rulers re-took control for a while and fought to the death, but the 'Locals' could not loose in the end as they held the Reality.

    In fact the Dominican Republic has great similarities with Science, it's just that science is still a bit behind! There is no 'Independence Day' but a 'Restoration Day'. One day physics may have the same, - but we must all support each other to achieve it"

    AE; "I'll drink to that!"

      • [deleted]

      • Post #84

      Dear Peter,

      You are correct old friend, we must support one another. The 'old one' is subtle, but not malicious. The question is are we clever enough to know 'his thoughts'? We can only hope.

      Who are we to challenge the status quo? Thanks to FQXi for giving us the opportunity!

      Let's drink to that!

      Cheers,

      Robert

      Hello Peter,

      I've been discussing with Edwin Klingman (in my thread) a few things on the idea of cosmic mass-energy genesis and the idea of motion transformations instead of spacetime transformations. Your essay was mentioned.

      My understanding is that in your view black holes recycle mass and energy. This is an interesting idea to me because that is part of my own view.

      I have however the extended idea that black holes are actually involved in the 'creation' of new 'cosmic' mass-energy out of the fundamental and infinite 'chaotic' mass-energy reservoir. My idea is that basically the 'chaotic' null energy in the void 'flow' into the gravitational systems and are transformed into 'cosmic' densified mass-energy that get fissioned and stabilized in the domain of the cosmic observables, or that get radiated and attenuated back into the domain of the chaotic void. The overall process is biased towards the increasing cosmic mass-energy domains as time passes.

      My idea is that we have the 'super thin' 'dark void' at one extreme end and the 'super dense' 'black holes' at the other extreme end, with both characterized as having the invisible 'dark' or 'black' motions; while in-between we have the variegated visible or observable quantized motion constructs.

      My propositions are based mainly on the idea that 'motion' is the basic component or essence of all the phenomena within space. Everything that we see or touch is of the essence of motion - i.e., particles and waves are all constructs of motion.

      I have held back quite a bit on my ideas. But I hope you will read my essay and give it a rating, too.

      Rafael

      Rafael

      Brilliant! I shall read your essay immediately. I don't blame you for holding back as I expect you've found similar truths to those I have, and know they need breaking gently. None the less I have ventured a little further (than in a paper recently accepted for peer review) and explained some in a (my latest) pre print web archive paper at; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 From your comments above I definitely feel a couple of well earned tens coming on!?

      I'll comment once I've read it, but for the record, and in practical 'buildable' terms, yes; Mass is energy, which is held by motion, and does condense and evaporate, by local 'compression', though indeed peaked during the black hole based recycling process. I also show significant evidence that the Universe is just a bigger version this, with interesting consequences! - you'll see in the paper.

      I can't wait to read yours!

      And Robert; I'm becoming more and more convinced Status Quo have had their day! I expect you should read it too.

      Best wishes

      Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #87

        Hello Peter,

        Thanks I will take a look.

        If you are interested to know what 'the Light' is, then you may like to read the last post on my thread where I attempt to explain it. At the very least it may explain my low rating.

        Incidentally the score I have given you has registered, but not yet your score to me.

        All the best,

        Robert

        Hello Peter,

        I wanted to thank you for your last correspondence on my forum. I left a response there. I also wanted to let you know that I was in full assault mode on my last entry of the time traveler's blog. You might want to check it out and let me know what you think.

        As always, thanks for your support.

        Dan

        • [deleted]

        • Post #90

        Peter,

        I thought it would be more convenient for you if we discuss you questions here, instead of on my essay's page.

        --------------

        "If we say the 'problem' is to explain how a constant speed of light is measured by all moving observers, does it understandably explain how this can be achieved with a quantum mechanism?

        If successful, this should lead to the success I referred to."

        ---------------

        Peter, can you expand on/clarify your question?

        Hi Peter,

        First thank you very much for your comment on my essay, for me (not being a professional scientist) it is already an honour to be published among such a erudite company.

        Untill now I read twice your essay, and really this explained for me some essentials of SR, your title 2020 vision is I hope pessimistic we have as you say to overcome the centric specialistic personal vieuws, where we go deeper and deeper into the fractals of our knowledge and only come across the same formula.

        I liked very much the explanation of the quasar jets at 7c , imagine what would happen if we did not apply the "within media" ands the "relative velocity" of media elements, the photons from other "space" would go back in time , and emerge in our past, observers at that time would see emerge from nothing a strong beam of photons (then at c locally), if this happens we should now also see emerge these kind of strange explosions of photons, and I don't think we do.

        You mention that a massive body is surrounded by a discrete area of space, this causing the plasma shock, the illustrations give a very good proof of that, I understand that when we go to the smaller scales , you mention even below Planck matter domain, we will encounter the same kind of effects, and here Peter your essay and mine have a point of contact, if in my idea the Planck scale 10^-33cm is the ultimate measurable so observable length in our 4 dimensional world, if it also surrounded by space is space the right word, or is it, and that is what I would prefer a "Field" emerging from the existance of the Planck quantum, the collisions of these surrounding fields could very well be the origin of what you call plasma shocks that are responsible for gravity and inertial mass , this would explain also the so called "holographic" appearance of our Universe. Of course on the larger scale these multiple plasma shocks become a continuity forming another observable space with its own local c.

        The contenence of your essay is very wide, I am awaiting a book on this subject that goes perhaps also deeper in Gravity that depends on accelleration and speed via mass (where time runs slower) through a condensate/potential, the whole shabang of our universe is waiting for people like you and verybody partcipating in the ultimate contest of understanding.

        kind regards and of course a high place in this contest.

        William

        Wilhelmus

        I'm flabbergasted by your excellent comprehension of the concepts in my essay. You have true conceptual intellect. The additional variables are beyonf most minds to hold. In fact due to so many missing the key logic I quickly re-read it myself this week and didn't fully understand it! (half joking of course). But then, as you say, you were already in the same territory so knew the conceptual language. In that case you may be interested in this voyage into the unknown land of logical conclusions; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 Let me know if you think a scientific derivation of life after death is a journey too far!

        Thank you and best of luck

        Peter

        Hi Lev

        Hopefully Wil's post above may give more hints, but you ask me to clarify;

        "If we say the 'problem' is to explain how a constant speed of light is measured by all moving observers, does it understandably explain how this can be achieved with a quantum mechanism? If successful, this should lead to the success I referred to."

        I was asking if you understood the essay, which does explain how a constant speed of light is observed "irrespective of the motion of emitter or observer". What is more it uses only current science, no new or complex maths, and a quantum mechanism, which therefore unifies SR,GR and QM. Penrose referred to this as the Holy Grail of physics

        It's predictive power and ability to resolve anomalies and paradox is astonishing. It uses comprehensive observation (over many fields), rigorous logic, and an entrained ability to conceive and visualise a number of moving variables and consequential effects. it is something mathematical abstraction is not equipped for.

        There are a hundred ways to describe it; A proof of a = g. the switch back to a reality 3D Body co-ordinate system from 'point and line' abstractions, The use of multiple space time manifolds themselves as 'inertial fields', the transformation of motion rather than numbers between frames, "Infinitel many 'spaces' in relative motion" (Q Both Minkowski and Einstein), the "Spatial extension" of mass (Einstein) etc etc etc.

        The only problem is that I'm not a full time professional physicist, and the thoery isn't a mathematical one, so it cannot be recognised or understood by most current un-eminent physicists. So despite writing it up in every way possible and pointing out all the predictions that have been met (the most spectacular 3yr lensing delays) it is still ignored. Also see p18 of 19th Feb and p16 of 26th Feb NS re plasma and light.

        It is however correct, and I am patient and tenacious, so it will eventually be understood and get science out of it's current rut. The number of consistent theories seems to be growing exponentially, but I still expect it will take till 2020.

        The changes to the SR postulates and principles? None. It's only our lack of logical comprehension and over reliance on maths that has kept it cloaked. I believe your thought organisational approach may benefit.

        have another read, and of the link i gave to Wil (though a bit hard core!) and let me know if you can see the implications.

        Peter

        To all; Bells Inequality

        Joy Christian and Edwin have shown flaws in Bells inequality but no doubt much doubt may remain, so I explain the conceptual solution here that also shows the limitations, of it's domain.

        The fact that motion is transformed locally to a new 'manifold' via condensed matter condensing (the implementation of the change) means effectively that it's particle form CAN effectively 'depend on someone observing it', yet up to that moment it remains part of the 'continuum' (or Schrodinger wave-front if you prefer) so doesn't breach anything and is thus allowed. this cannot of itself 'explain' entanglement, but we should remember this arose more from mockery be Einstein than by discovery, and none of the very limited experimental evidence has a conclusive or only one explanation. To much assumption can be dangerous!

        Peter

        Quite impressive, Peter. Do I need to print your essay to be sucked in by your embedded black hole. I haven't done that yet but will. With my meager background, I certainly need more time to digest your thoughts.

        You are justified in sitting on top of the FQXi mountain.

        Jim Hoover

        James

        Far from the top yet, but thanks for the kind words. the black hole is only a photograph. Look carefully for the giant Tokomak (Toroid - or donut) lensing light in HH34. I can't find any evidence it was previously spotted! Or indeed the head of the 2nd red shifted Jet. There should also be one at the centre of the universe, (a bit bigger) which the 'axis of evil' points us to. As Einstein said, discovery is easy once we know what we're looking for. It's noted in my last 2 papers, including the preprint linked.

        Peter

          I've been asked to explain my statement above re Bells inequality, Briefly; but to set the scene; The inconsistency Joy C spotted is essentially mathematical, so i won't comment!, there are issues that the main loopholes identified may have been closed individually but not yet all at once (Freedom of choice, fair sampling and Separation/Locality) though being tried, and the Cambridge 'Locality Collapse' loophole, But I refer to none of these!

          It's simply that measurable properties do change between inertial fields so the whole assumption limiting 'localism' is extended beyond it's valid domain. It's a bit like the invalidity of moving points in geometry. Once you rely on the maths and assume they're ok all results are rendered invalid. (think about it, that's an awful lot of recent physics!) Sorry if it's a shock.

          The other thing it does do is allow QM in a Discrete of 'Block' universe, essentially by creating the boundary domain. This in reality is our very own plasmasphere / ionosphere, where light speed changes from 'c' wrt the sun to 'c' wrt the planet. Occams razor rules ok?

          If anyone has any scientific disproof of that (but not 'beliefs' please) please do give it here.

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #98

          Peter,

          Great opportunity to pick up our discussions from months ago! I am curious on a curiosity! How those of the 'particle' persuasion explain how 'photons' pick up speed again after they have been slowed down going through a medium like glass! Of course in our view, there is no problem! The same principles I use to explain the double-slit experiment (as well as many other results in my essay) apply here as well:

          1)Energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely.

          2)Before there is manifestation there is accumulation of energy.

          3)The 'photon' emitted is not the same as the 'photon' detected.

          More generally, what is the mechanism by which waves propagate through a medium? I don't mean a 'mathematical model'!

          Recently I have been thinking about your Discrete Field. I am trying to make sense of how this fits with continuous propagation of energy. Can you elaborate?

          Constantinos

            • [deleted]

            • Post #99

            Dear Peter,

            Extremely interesting essay, of course! I likely may never fully comprehend, but I will take some time to understand as best I can.

            In the meantime, I invite you to consider two perhaps distantly related conceptual questions regarding the perception of the universe. I expect your comprehension of the physics involved may allow you to quickly identify some misconception...

            1. While the identified CMB emissions are almost certainly the highly redshifted EM emissions permeating ancient spacetime, might not local spacetime currently be emitting sparse (infrared and other spectra) energy waves, just as virtual particles seem to appear from nothing? Unlike the detected uniform microwave signal, local sparse, uniform emissions of 'space energy' would likely not be discernable from other 'signals'. Of course, the recent local emissions would be much 'cooler' than the distant ancient emissions of 'space energy' in the hot, dense early universe. Nevertheless, the CMB may actually represent only the ancient tip of the spacetime continuum 'iceberg'.

            2. The determination that the universe is accelerating was based on the discrepancy between distance estimates derived from (1 type Ia SNe consistent peak emission luminosity and (2 standard cosmological models (based on redshift) with standard parameters. The discrepancy only occurred for SN >5Glya. The SNe luminosities indicated they were 10% - 15% farther away than models predicted. To produce agreeable model estimates for more distant objects, researchers modified their model to include a positive cosmological constant parameter ('vacuum energy density') and a negative deceleration parameter (intended to indicate acceleration).

            Since it was the more ancient light emissions from more distant objects that exhibited greater effects from spacetime expansion than the more recent light emissions from nearer objects, I assert that the observational results only confirmed that universal expansion has temporally decelerated, as previously expected.

            As I understand, both light emitted 5G years ago and light emitted 4G years ago both traversed spacetime imparting identical (uniform) conditions and effects of spacetime expansion for the past 4G years. The only distinction between the two sample groups of photons is the effects produced by the conditions of spacetime expansion that occurred 4G - 5G years ago. Since the more ancient light emissions from more distant objects indicated greater expansion, it was the earlier expansion that produced those effects. Is this interpretation incorrect?

            I hope you can spare a little time to consider these issues.

            Sincerely,

            Jim

            Constantinos,

            You asked Peter "How those of the 'particle' persuasion explain how 'photons' pick up speed again after they have been slowed down going through a medium like glass!"

            In a comment above [Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 23:21 GMT] I linked to a new paper that treats that question: GEM and the Constant Speed of Light.

            I hope this makes some sense to you. It also relates to Jason's remark about information being lost due to redshift.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman