Dear D.C.R (Dr. Cosmic Ray)

I am still having fun, and just read your comment "vacuum" has a speed of light, c = Sqrt(1/eps*mu), where eps is the permittivity of free space (implies the polarization of the vacuum) and mu is the permeability of free space (implies a residual magnetization of the vacuum). In my papers (see links in my other comments today in this thread) I theorize that everything, including the vacuum, is made up of dielectric spinning nodes. That would be the source of eps and mu. I wish I had a more thorough grasp of electricity and magnetism to analyze that further in the context of my theory.

Cheers, Vladimir

Heh heh, I see that reaching out has worked out nicely for you. That's Justice, in a way.

I read your essay and enjoyed it very much. Honestly can't provide any more feedback as you don't need the Publicity, looks like--lol.

What a wonderful morning FOUR OUT OF FIVE PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE MODEL !!!!! No statistical conclusions possible, but I felt that first Eureka moment all over again. Thanks guys, I feel real progress at last. I'll respond to your points, - below or on your strings.

Dear Ray

Thanks for your post, and having an initial go, but you're not quite there with your hurdler. That's not what I'm saying. Did you read the 'bus' analogy in Lawrence's string? (repeated by Edwin in mine above).

If one hurdler jumps on a passing bus he's IN a different inertial frame (via acceleration). He may well run along the bus at the same speed as the others, but unfortunately is DISQUALIFIED from being observed in the same terms as the others without a mathematical adjustment. i.e. The camera at the finish is perfectly allowed to see him at an APPARENT C plus V, but there is only one VALID inertial frame, that of the running track.

There may be dozens of hurdlers around, on bikes, in cars, planes on infinitely many vectors, but only those in the SAME INERTIAL FRAME of the observer comply with the rules that the maximum possible speed is 'c'.

This means light on the bus will do 'c' with respect to 'wrt' the bus. (Let's imaging a pulse going through a gas on the bus.). The gas molecules scatter light sequentially, at 'c'. It goes through the window (n=1.5) and air at c/n, and everyone else will recive it at 'c'. The fact that to all them it may APPEAR to be doing C plus V DOES NOT MATTER, because in reality it isn't!!

(This is precisely what Georgina is saying, also consistent with Edwins, Constantinos Regazas and many other good essays here, as the posts above).

Yes it IS different, Yes it IS reasonable huge, and yes it does meet and explain both the SR postulates, and identifies how Equivalence works.! The boundary (between the bus and the track) in space is the quantum mechanism of diffraction of plasma, ionised particles, which form all shocks and may well prove to be the core constituent of dark matter. (Eddington was wrong). GR then slots in neatly as the ions condensed with speed ARE mass, with inertia.

The emipirical evidence is unbelievably consistent once we look. I't the discrete field model,(DFM), and you heard it here first, can you see it too? Have fun exploring it!

Best wishes.

Peter

    Dear Vladimir,

    I like your idea because it ties in with Gingras' Magnetic Spin Ice (a quasiparticle analogy of Dirac's Magnetic Monopole) and because it ties in with some of the ideas in my book (specifically HyperFlavor-ElectroWeak), and I'm trying to put together the right model to incorporate all of these ideas. It currently looks a lot like an SO(32) torus...

    I hope that your sight recovers well enough for you to resume your art. My wife is also an artist. Sometimes my physics representations start looking a little bit like her art.

    Have Fun!

    Dr. Cosmic Ray

    Hi Peter,

    No, Your thread is long enough that I had overlooked the bus analogy.

    You said "The fact that to all them it may APPEAR to be doing C plus V DOES NOT MATTER, because in reality it isn't!!"

    SR also gives this result. What's new? the interpretation of a discrete vs. continuous reality? If reality is fully discrete, then I want you to explain the "vacuum", the permitivity of free space, and the permeability of free space (all of these terms are important in defining the speed of light in a vacuum) in terms of discrete phenomena. I think that the discrete answer to this question should tie into my FCC lattice of the Dirac Sea, and Constantin Leshan's quantum spacetime holes. We are closer to the same bus route than you may realize...

    I did not enter this contest to challenge SR and GR - I think that they stand fairly well in their realms of applicability. Certainly, we observe some apparently super-luminal jets. Is this an optical illusion due to gravitational lensing effects, or would the unknown Theory of Quantum Gravity explain it all?

    Rather than overthrow SR and GR in their present form, I prefer to try to understand how Quantum Gravity should behave (based on anticipated symmetries), and use it to "modify" our understanding of SR and GR.

    Have Fun!

    Dr. Cosmic Ray

    Ray. Hmmm, you need to slow down a bit (to below C?). I make it clear I'm not trying to overthrow anything!! And yes, the jets are also explained without needing optical illusions.

    Firstly; Of course SR gives the same result ('c') this IS SR. But, - as we understand it it has paradoxes, unfalsifiable contraction & circular logic, is non compliant with QM, and can't have the fields of GR and now the CMBR! Lets' get real Ray, it's not perfect it's a mess, so all I say is; - Hey! if we think carefully there's a way SR may work without ANY of the messy bits, and unified with QM!

    So.. are you saying; "Don't be silly, it's all fine as it is, the theory can't possibly be right so I'm not even going to bother checking it out."??

    For those who HAVE made the effort and SEEN it Ray, someone who says that... ..well I'm sure you can imagine how they'd be perceived. I rate your perception higher than that, but do understand how unlikely you may feel this is.

    Unless of course you're using the standard model of new physics!; - (ignore, criticise, deny, then claim it's self apparent). I that case It's way further on than I'd hoped!

    Frankly I already wrote long ago it's able to be consistent with the Dirac Sea, as with lattices, as it ALLOWS (though not necessarily demands) a background frame, (not one giant bus but 'infinitely many') and provides a quantum matrix (ions & scattering) to implement change to em energy propagation (rate/f/lambda).

    The superluminal jets are simply 'Incentric' streams, - small buses within bigger buses within bigger buses, on planets in solar systems in galaxies etc. Light changes speed at plasma shocks around matter to do 'c' in the local 'bus.' THAT'S what's new! and suddenly all else slots neatly into place at last. I really do hope you get this as it seems we could be heading for an astonishing ridiculous situation where it's only (some) physicists who can't understand how physics might really work!!! It needs bright physicists to help falsify it, fine tune it and work on the quite vast consequences.

    there are some other papers to read in the string and in the references (stacks of empirical evidence) which may also help. With the 1st paper already in Peer Review this is no joke Ray, and I hope you can maybe give it a just a little respect.

    And I really hope you give understanding it a decent shot.

    Very best wishes

    Peter

      Russel

      Brilliant to see such excellent comprehension! Most just skim over so miss the pot of gold.

      Your equations may be important as it seems I for one certainly need to accurately test the equivalence of plasma diffraction to curve space time.

      I do get the impression yours moves a little beyond the falsifiable in places. i think you need to research things like Birefringence, PMD, Stokes Scattering, Huygens construction, Harmonics, and complex superposed waves, Certainly wave, signal, group and phase velocity are still very poorly understood, even in Optics!! But to mix metaphors we don't need to throw mainstream babies out with the bathwater if not demostrable/y essential.

      Best of Luck

      Peter

      James

      Sorry, struggling to keep up. Thank you kindly.

      I think you're certainly no more of a nut than I am.

      Watch out for the men in white coats!

      Peter

      Talking of that.. Steve! where are you you crazzy Bruger? I've actually got some spinning spheres built in! - see the link to viXra somewhere above here. Have you got your head round the real moving buses yet?

      P

      Hi Peter,

      Did I disrespect you? I read your essay, and felt that it underemphasized the importance of the vacuum, and the permitivity and permeability of free space. I did not say that I disagree with your results - in fact, we may not be as different as you think. By the way, I haven't rated your essay yet either - I like to think about ideas for a few days before I vote on them.

      Of course, I learned the Standard Model in graduate school, but if you have read any of my FQXi essays, recently published articles, or book, then you would know that I consider the Standard Model an insufficient guess at reality. You are trying to clarify the understanding of SR and GR. I am not fine-tuning our understanding of SR and GR because I'm working towards a Theory of Quantum Gravity and a TOE. What good is a "TOE" that doesn't explain Quantum Gravity? Read some of the earlier posts on my thread that explain the possible stability of the gravitational near-singularity, and confirm your expectations of the importance of tori. I don't quite equate changing buses with quantum gravity.

      Please read Sections 5.5 and 7.5 of my book(You may need to click on the "Preview" button under the picture of the front cover for a free partial preview). It will give you an idea of just how "non-Standard" my ideas are.

      My ideas also include tachyons that travel faster than the speed of light. If you recall, I am a "Cosmic Ray" whose newest vehicle has 150K miles on it, is 11 years old, and would probably blow up if I pushed it over 80 mph (130 kmph). So I'm not very familiar with traveling faster than c, my analogies are just different from everyone elses!

      Have Fun!

      Dr. Cosmic Ray

      Vladimir.

      You have no idea how nice it is to find comprehension after reading comments from disparagers who probably could but don't want to comprehend. I forgive them as they know not what they do, but it makes it harder work than it should be.

      Sometimes Physics seems very different to the Architectural profession, there are many awards there but no cash prizes. It seems to be true that money may be the root of all evil as it certainly seems to make it more difficult to be wise, supportive and charitable. Of course there is competition but the whole ambience is one of mutual respect and co-operation, with no 'superior than thou' attitude. But, though sad, I must make it clear it seems only a minority and I've found some super nice intelligent people here too.

      Surely science is about securing and improving the future of humankind not of massaging short term ego? - But down off my own high horse (white charger) now!

      When you mention my reference to the field 'carrying on' if a body is stopped, this is of course precisely what happens to EM fields, which is why they're considered to have inertia. It may however logically be the local carrier field that continues. the em field does of course 'fall' and regenerate radially at 'c', which oft considered 'anaomalous' fact can tell us much.

      With respect to your field ('C' field/ether/condensate) density derivation to gravity, it seems our research reversed as I explored that, and left it as unfalsifiable. I'll try to get to your earlier paper but the greater logic does seem to apply to condensed matter, which does all jobs at once, embodying the inertial mass for equivalence with gravitational mass, at the same time as dragging light down to 'c' locally (or up) using Chistian Dopplers sums. If these are 'REAL' (have inertial/Gravitational mass) they will of course also have inertia, so ensure no anomaly.

      The general poor understanding of f/lambda realtionships realtes to motion and inertial frame dynamics, giving apparent, not real, effects. Georgina is having the same trouble I am convincing those indoctrinated that black is white to even consider, as Edwin says, that the basis of 30 years of work trying to find what is wrong, may have been wrong.

      Anyone who fully understood that first time should understand DFM dynamics pretty quickly!

      Hope the house is still up, and your eyes are still improving. I find things like that do give us perspective on our values.

      Very Best wishes.

      Peter

      Peter A. Jackson

      I read your article and I understood it. I was amazed! Our ideas are along the same theoretical path! You supported your article with cosmic emperical ideas, whereas, I used microscopic empirical ideas such as the interrelation of the existing universal constants of nature to support my article. It is just my opinion, but I believe that your ideas of a DFM is on track with what will be discovered in the future: that GR has a particle structure that is compatible with the QM particle structure.

      Your explanation of how the doppler effect would logically alter the discrete space field exactly parallels my mathematical ideas of how the doppler effect changes the discrete proton space structure into the discrete neutrron space structure. Your condense matter idea is the same as my idea of compressed matter into the Planck length realm leaving mainly the discrete space field.

      remarkable!

      Guilford Robinson

      Peter,

      Hi, I have read your essay a couple of times. I am looking at it again just picking things out. I am interested in your perspective on some questions. Here are a few for now:

      "Particles absorb signals, re-emitting them at the local c."

      If a particle in motion emits a photon forward and then emits a photon backward, does that particle measure both photons as moving at different speeds. (The particle is the observer)

      "A massive body in motion is surrounded by a discrete area of space bounded by a plasma shock of n=?."

      In a general sense, how does the plasma density compare front to back?

      "As individual protons can't physically increase in size the proton bunch would have to propagate, or condense, a surrounding plasma 'cloud' of temporary or 'virtual' particles to hold the mass. This would have a density and frequency subject to relative motion through the field. As no massive particle would ever quite be able to reach the new local c, this propagation would follow the Lorentz exponential curve. The power requirement for acceleration of mass towards c follows a similar curve."

      Can you explain why you expect a similar curve? Are you assuming that this must be true or have you worked it out mathematically?

      If I am taking things too much out of context or misrepresenting anything, please point that out. I appreciate accuracy. Thank you.

      James

      'Remarkable' and 'Amazed' (as Mr Guildford above) just doesn't say it Mr Jackson!

      I sometimes view this site, and it's never offered anything foundational, but now I don't regret that. Bravo! At Last. I would like your babies.

      Please talk to me of waves and Takamak black holes as that is my life.

      A new paradigm in science is about to begin and I am at it's birth, forget the fools and speak to me, I will Email you.

      Nadia

      Guildford

      Thanks for your kind comments. A 'Mensa' badge is on the way! It does seem to need all three of; Willingness, Conceptual ability and Empirical knowledge to be able to see it.

      Feynmann was spot on saying when the solution came it would first appear difficult to understand because it was different, then it would reveal how simple it really was.

      Mind you, instead of citing a hungry philosopher his answer to the student asking whether we saw an object or light bouncing off it, perhaps should have been; "It's light emitted from the objects surface particles when excited by light impacting on them." That may have led earlier to the DFM, it's explanation of fine structure, and the understanding that for light moving within a different frame (bus, train or plasmasphere) we only see a sequence of signals from different emitters NOT anything breaking 'c', - which is where Lorentz had gone wrong. Just a simple misunderstanding. It now seems Huygens, Fresnel, Doppler, Planck and Stokes were the real stars all along.

      I agree key elements of our theories are in agreement, and also consistent with a number of other very good essays here, including the apparently brilliant mathematical Planck tautology (in the essay) and photoelectric derivation of Regaza.

      Best wishes.

      Peter

      Dear Peter ,

      Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. It seems you are not short of supporters and voters, even Nadia wanting your babies now! I am glad that you're getting all of that appreciation and it looks like you may well be a finalist, which is great. I really would like your work evaluated by physics experts who know far more than I do about dielectric media, shock waves, matter condensing in particle accelerators, astronomic anomalies and the whole phenomena of light, whether considered as discreet photons or continuous waves traveling through different refractive media etc, etc, etc.

      I did write a whole list of what was good. The most significant thing on the list was that you are looking at the transmission of light and how it is affected and how this in turn affects observations. It is a very, very important aspect of reality to be considering, being the link between what is and what is observed. The emphasis on the significance of reference frame is also very, very important. The other main thing that I really liked was that you were tying a lot into actual astronomical observations or phenomena observed during experimentation. This is relevant to actual current physics data. The competition question is asking specifically about -reality-, so this important aspect of reality is very relevant to that.

      It would be easy to be swept along with your great enthusiasm but despite spending time with your essay in the end I have to admit, with regret, that I just do not currently have the expertise to give a fair evaluation and reciprocate your enthusiastic support. I have read it several times. It is very content rich and full of supporting evidence, that I do not currently have the time or energy to educate myself about. That is my problem not a fault of the essay. I understand why you wanted to include so much in it but it may have been at the cost of greater clarity.

      Very soon it will be up to the FQXi judges to evaluate. I wish you the very best of luck in that and thank you once again for your encouragement and support.

      Georgina.

      James

      Very good questions;.

      1. (Emitting photons at 'c') "If a particle in motion emits a photon forward and then emits a photon backward, does that particle measure both photons as moving at different speeds. (The particle is the observer)."

      No. The particle doesn't 'know' it's moving. BUT; 1. As we know from scattering, a 'photon' (waves) is emitted in the same general direction of the 'arriving' wave, unless by a more complex 'bunch' where some can scatter beyond 90 degrees back! Fresnel's addition to Huygens Principle (to make HFP) was his attempt to explain this lack of a back wave. His explanation is controversial, but the fact remains. http://www.jadhavresearch.info/docs/AJ.2005.1.ObliquityFactor.pdf The refracted light path vector is about 'sum over paths' due to interference, and can be calculated via Fourier Optics and the Ewald-Oseen Extinction theorem.

      However. If we now try to consider the observer as the scatterer, we find the fine structure oscillators emit the light at 'c' wrt themselves in all directions, but as soon as they negociate the change in medium (at the fine structure/ion plasmasphere) they are re-emitted at 'c' wrt the NEW medium yet again. i.e. Our sun emitts light at 'c' wrt itself, but inside our planetary shock and outside the heliospher bow shock, it changes to the local 'c' there. (which is why it's Doppler shifted). Phew!

      2. (Plasmasphere). "In a general sense, how does the plasma density compare front to back?" The NASA shot of LL Orionis shows it well. It's more diffuse but more 'extended' at the back. The Bow Shock has to compress (blue shift) the light to higher energy in a short time (Anti Stokes/ Scattering to higher frequency etc.) We do have some good data from Cluster, Image etc. try these; http://vlf.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/518.pdf The parabolic bow shock is what has fooled the ballistic photon brigade (stellar aberration) and deflected Lorentz from Stokes correct solution (consistent with the M&M null result) originally; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

      3. Lorentz Curve/power input. "Can you explain why you expect a similar curve? Are you assuming that this must be true or have you worked it out mathematically?"

      I don't do sums now James. As Georgina reminds us, the subject here is REALITY, and maths is abstraction. That also means I minimise 'assumption' and look at reality. i.e. the CERN electricity bill I have to pay for! Because the vacuum DOES have resistance (see discussion on Rays string) it takes almost infinite power to get to 99.9999etc% of 'c'. OK, this is all to conceptual 1st approximation on the graph shape, it does however give Lorentz's fans something to hold on to when we find his (actually Fresnel's) equation is thrown out of the rest of it's domain! It's supporters may try a Gaddafi style comeback, but the REALITY should out in the long term (2020?).

      I hope that's full if not accurate, enough? But do ask any more. I recall your main part was now all pretty consistent with the DFM anyway, but there did seem to be a lot of other empirical evidence and detail to fill in. I hope this helps.

      Best wishes

      Peter

        Nadia

        Thanks for your very kind offer.

        TOKAMAKS. You probably know far more than me of the Tokamak heart of Toroid black holes. They only have one hole but need to suck in and eject the plasma building blocks of galaxies and universes two ways, this provides us with solutions to the 'anomalous' (spiral) quadrupolar asymmetry of the CMBR, Chiral,/tri-axial polarisation, re-ionisation, 'axis of evil', Lithium 7 shortage etc. But I diverge. With Tokamaks (you will know the derivation of the word) we are only reproducing natures most fundamental powerhouse and recycling machines, from the scale of the sub atomic to the universes. A continuous double helical construction (where have we seen something like that before?) of multiple axis dynamism, which I also expect may prove to be the root of spin.

        WAVES? These are my true love Nadia, since childhood. I must do some work now, but will definitely revert to speak of waves.

        Best wishes, and thanks for your support.

        Peter

        Thanks Georgina

        It's also explainable in the simplest terms (as Einstein predicted) helped by the better understanding your reality gives.

        The light pulse moving though a florescent tube on a bus passing by does max 'c' in the tube. The light signals (or photons, as you wish) telling you where the pulse is at at any moment are sent at 'c', and travel at 'c' (or c/n) on the way to your eye or detector.

        The bus is a different inertial field (frame). No matter how fast it goes nothing in REALITY does more than 'c'. No shrinking of the bus or Lorentz transformation is needed to ensure that is the case. It's simple logic. Only observation from the same frame is valid without correction. The postulates of SR are correct, just the enforced 'assumption' of no ('3rd/Preferred') background frame was wrong. (but it's still correct no 'absolute' frame exists - even the CMBR rest frame).

        One of the links I just passed to James identifies why and how we went off track. We hadn't been to space at the time so didn't have the information to solve the 'Chinese puzzle' of constant light speed.

        You'll remember my essay last year. I hope I've explained it better this year?

        Best wishes.

        Dear Peter,

        Thanks for the comments on my blog site!

        I also like falsifiability. Chapters 4 and 6 of my book tie into experimental data, and are falsifiable. The obvious problem is that most everything that I have done since is so speculative that it isn't yet obvious to me if it is or isn't falsifiable (although the lattices that I use are fundamental to Solid State Physics). I like the fact that some of my ideas may tie into Coldea et al's magnetic quasiparticle mass-ratio experimental results. I also like Vladimir Tamari's ideas that may tie into Gingras' magnetic spin ice quasiparticle experimental results.

        Do you have an infinite number of buses and bus stops with an infinite number of discrete reference frames, or am I way off-base?

        I use stacks of cannonballs as analogies for fermions because it is easier to describe than an FCC lattice. I think that the bosons are the reciprocal lattice and behave like "struts" between centers of cannonballs in our 3-D space.

        Yes - I am aware of the "slingshot" method for speeding up space probes. My van would probably fall apart...

        I also like tokamaks. I worked on the TEXT tokamak at the University of Texas, Austin in 1981-82.

        I have wild ideas that might unite several of our ideas (you, me, Crowell, Gibbs, Lisi, Castel, Sreenath, Tamari, Leshan, Duforney, perhaps Lowey and Klingman). It goes something like this:

        A static Black Hole does not collapse on its singularity because a buckyball-shaped lattice of spacetime (or quantum gravity) prevents said collapse. In the case of a rotating Black Hole (most stars rotate so most Black Holes should as well), torsion effects cause a pair of nested buckyball lattices to morph into their homotopic cousin, a lattice-like torus in a rotating (rotation = time along Steve Duforney's ideas?) and apparently 3-D space with 120 lattice sites. Each of these 120 sites, contains one of Vladimir Tamari's tetrahedra (which may also be related to Gingras and Section 7.2 of my book) which are also rotating (another time dimension?) in an (another set of spatial dimensions?) apparently 3-D space. Along the lines of my ideas (and Laurent Nottale's), these different 3-D shapes - torus and tetrahedra - may exist at different spatial scales (I suspect that the tetrahedra are much smaller than the torus) with different time scales (different rates of rotation for torus and tetrahedra). In this case, the Black Hole "singularity" is at the center of the donut hole, and is either empty (like one of Constantin Leshan's quantum spacetime holes) or permanently confined - we will never know.

        Carbon-60 buckyballs have superconductor properties that expel electric fields. Wouldn't it be cool if these spacetime (or quantum gravity) lattices (buckyball or lattice-like torus) had properties that allowed them to expel gravitational fields? And wouldn't this be close to some of Klingman's GEM-like ideas?

        This model contains 120x4=480 degrees-of-freedom plus basis vectors (at least 8? two 3-d spaces and 2 times?). This looks a lot like an E8xE8* ~ SO(32) where one E8 is strictly real, and the other E8* is stricly imaginary (Theoretically, the TOE needs complex representations whether we like it or not as this may be the most appropriate way to include CP symmetry violation - recall that tachyons have imaginary mass). We require imaginary numbers for the mathematical modeling to be complete, however we also admit that we might not be able to observe this part of "reality" (although we may use the Kramers-Kronig Relation for some implications), and therefore anticipate that any observer should be able to measure half (at most) of the dynamic variables present in any given experiment.

        One of these E8's is a corrected version of Garrett Lisi's E8 TOE (he never should have had bosons and fermions in the same lattice representation - they should be in reciprocal lattices to one another). If we break these E8's into H4's (such that E8~H4xH4*), then we may have an H4xH4* representation that is similar to Edwin Klingman's 4 particles and 4 fields - I don't think that Ed is necessarily wrong - I think that his model might use the same triality symmetry for color and generations, and is not complete.

        Each point in the toroidal lattice is the end of a string (that should be rotating in response to the tetrahedra). Within the Black Hole, these strings expand outwards as Sreenath's logarithmic spirals until the scale is "diluted" enough that we have a reasonably flat, continuously-differentiable spacetime outside of the Event Horizon.

        If these strings also rotate (as implied above), and have the dimensional (probably extra-dimensional because it has different scales for gravity and electromagnetism?) equivalent of "screw-threads", then the strings may behave like Alan Lowey's Archimedes' Screw idea to transfer force along the direction of the string (now an infinitely-thin "flexible screw").

        Please wrap your brain around that and let me know what you think?

        Have Fun!

        Dr. Cosmic Ray

          Nadia

          ...and WAVES (Also see post to Ken Wharton)

          I feel they're largely quite poorly understood, though a little better in optics, due to complexity.

          From testing wave barriers on the beach as a child to representing the UK at yachting gave me a good intuitive feel for superposed surface waves, from tiny ripples telling of wind, through those that seriously effect boat speed, to tsunami's and equinoxial tides, all interfering, in a flowing medium at different depths and vectors. I learned to anticipate the steep face or flat patch before it's created to accelerate or feather the boat. No wonder we see the difficulty of finding a fixed reference at any point and moment as uncertainty! For the brainpower we have it certainly is. The relationships of energy, velocity, f, lambda and Doppler shift are real when approaching a windward mark and turning to run downwind or reach across them using face inclination and gravity, and they are different in all approach frames, or when drifting, or at anchor. Yet these are the simplest!

          Sound waves are not all about 'billiard balls' nudging each other, and light waves are not all about photons. We may find they're rather more similar than we thought. Certainly waves are made of particles and particles of waves.

          I see waves as harmonics and rainbows, and perhaps empathise most with Huygens, Fresnel and Schrödinger. Motion is oscillation is inertia is matter is waves. It may be a while until we understand what is waving to us and why, but it is something continuous if by comparison to 'ponderable mass'. Is it part of reality? Of course. It gives us the complex discretion that we and reality are modelled with.

          That's scratched the surface of waves as I feel them Nadia. Was that ok for you?

          Peter