Can We See Reality From Here? by Thomas Howard Ray

Tom

I too was surprised reading the essay, on most counts, but pleasantly surprised. Yes. I found it very 'choppy' as you put it, but as it was a resume of discrete topographical features in a massive landscape that's unavoidable. (Eckard advised me to drop the scatter gun approach, good advice, but others would note key pellets omitted).

Another was your use of some of my favourite quotes! and, surprisingly, I couldn't avoid feeling many of your (strictly rationed) observations actually paralleled my own philosophy, almost as if we were in separate parallel but brane universes! For instance; "decision-making is limited to available information, which is never complete" "While our information processing capacity is finite, nature's is infinite", "The algebra of discrete events is therefore compelled to play a bigger role in physics", (Bar-Yam)"a system of discrete schema that, like quantum mechanics, begs classical parameters", and "physical influences at any distance are not compelled to be smoothly connected, only correspondent, harmonic". All these directly apply to the model I'm trying to get falsified, which is another "Singularity free theory preserving relativity" - although I know you haven't yet seen it as that.

I see our difference may be that my own marriage of art and science HAS to end up with falsifiable reality. My buildings have to be actually built and lived in, I KNOW they are real, and affect peoples views of reality. I don't have the luxury you have to stay in the realm of theorization. I have to yeild results from it. This is where my model comes from, and so far it has withstood all logical assault!

If an engineer can show how and why may sketch designs may fall down I am extatic! I can't have them collapsing later. I'm concerned when engineers only say "It must fail because it doesn't look like the Eiffel tower, which we know works perfectly, and I haven't seen one like it before" ..they get fired! I think you'd be capable of a better job on my model than you've tried so far, and would be honoured if you'd give it a try.

Thanks for surprising me. Best of luck.

Peter

Tom

Thanks, Hope you'll read the essay, and string comments. Logical assault repulsed, but first, resting my magazine over the wast basket (about 2 secs of air) you must have heard of the astronomer, physicist and mathematician on the train to Scotland. Sitting across the gangway was an architect. Let me know if you know it and I'll complete it.

Let's use the same train, which is 100m long. Lightning hits front and rear at the same moment, they're in the centre, would the flashes reach them at the same moment?

Bear in mind air is say 'n'= 1.0003 and is still. Do the light pulses care two hoots which way the train is moving? Do we find the light doing c/n locally, or some other speed?

Further up the track at the same time two more forks of lighting hit the track 100 m. apart. A man was exactly central to them, the air was still. Same questions, same answers?

The man walks along the embankment. As the train passes, he stops by a pole, yet two more forks, both ends forking to hit both the tracks and train equidistant from the pole, instantaneously. Inside the train we can assume no change to before? Outside; the forks mark the track, 100m apart, and the man still sees the pulses together of course. Hmmm.

So at what moment would the man see the passengers at the centre of the train lit up by the flashes?

There are two possible answers. in the Discrete Field Model the train represents a Local inertial frame (3D 'field' or 'body' with the co-ordinates 'rigidly attached') moving within a background frame of gas (air but it may as well of course be ions or a vacuum, - as may the train). In this case the man sees the passengers lit up, from both sides at once, at the same moment but slightly to the right (due to the trains 'v') of the pole being lit by the flashes from the track.

And what does the man see of the pulse from the rear of the train? light (doing 'c' wrt the train) scattering new photons from the gas particles in the train and one by one taking the signal to the man at c/n (but slowed temporarily by the glass on the way at 'n'= 1.5). Nothing in reality breaches 'c' anywhere, (it may just 'apparently' seem to). This solution is Lorentz invariant in both frames, matches all observation, and Einstein's comment that there had, philosophically, somehow, to be "infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion". It's also consistent with both postulates of SR.

In the other option the train shrinks then grows again, and we have to assume the quantum field or ether (of which he said "space without ether is unthinkable") has to be ignored. And also, when we check the length of the train against the marks on the track - they're the same!!

The planet earth, with a plasmasphere diffractive boundary rather than windows, is the next 'space' up, then the Helisphere, (shock), then the galaxy (Halo). Light does 'c' locally within each. At the other end of the scale the fine structure of our eye is refractive, and it's lense, is n = 1.38. Was that sound a logical penny dropping?

That is a REAL logical assault. But the actual question is, how much longer will we keep insisting on proving Einstein correct in his belief that human stupidity is infinite!? it's not DIFFERENT to SR, it just shows how it works WITH the ether! Perhaps call it 'Extra' Special Relativity (ESR)if you don't like DFM.

Peter

(One of us here is going to be either a hero or a famous fool, the other just a hero. I'm sitting here patiently on my white charger without fear. How about you?)

Best wishes

Peter

Now, about that joke....

Peter,

I am no hero, have often been called stupid and a fool, and the last time I was on a horse I had to endure my cousin (an expert horsewoman) shouting at me, "Let go of that saddlehorn, you sissy!"

In any case, the relativity of simultaneous events is well understood and tested. It doesn't change when one imposes special conditions for the speed of light, because we always use the vacuum speed, and correct for conditions. In other words, the physically real phenomenon that is independent in its physical properties is not affected by those conditions.

I haven't heard the joke, but I think I know where it's going. :-)

Best,

Tom

Tom

The critical difference there are not tested at all Tom (just the postulates that agree with both solutions). I'm sorry about the logical lance through the heart. I'm sure you'll brush it off, but those who attack the shining armour with popcorn must learn that reliance on folklore won't protect them in these enlightened times!

At least Einstein admitted he looked like an ostridge and kept his head up searching for the way our of the (apparently only apparent!) paradoxes. Some deny he needed to (but get a mouthful of sand).

Anyway;

A few minutes before arrival time in Edinborough for the science conference the Astronomer spotted a black sheep alone in a field "Wow, he said, .look! ...scottish sheep are black!"

The physicist tutted, "No, ..all that tells us is that SOME scottish sheep are black."

The mathematicin said; "No, ..all we know is that there is one scottish sheep in one field, a minimum of half of which is black."

The Architect sitting opposite checked his watch. He'd just been admiring a well known perpendicular church spire in a village they passed, 10 miles from the border. He said; "You may find that a little inacurate.." they gave him a strange look "....it seems ....we may be running a little late..?"

They turned away from the stupid 'amateur', shook their heads and carried on talking.

If any one initial proposition, assumption or axiom is just slightly out the whole theory is invalidated, and no amount of brilliant maths will make it correct. All it will do is fool people into beleiving the answer is proved.

They discussed the sheep at the conference. At the end of the week the architect saw them again and explained. No amount of evidence would now convince them the sheep wasn't scottish as the pattern was now embedded in their brain cell structure. Quite obviously the train had just slowed down!

I suggest that's where much of physics has been for some decades.

Peter

Dear Tom,

Thank you for your kind remarks on my essay.

I have thoroughly enjoyed your essay, written in a very readable and lucid style. I learnt new things; especially fun was Buridan's ass. It again brings out the importance of fluctuations away from equilibrium! Where you discuss the Jacobson-Verlinde work on the gravity-thermodynamics connection, I also wanted to mention the related noteworthy work of my Indian colleague Thanu Padmanabhan [available on the internet].

Best wishes,

Tejinder

Dear Tom

I could not claim to have read your paper in detail, just skimmed through - enough to tell me your erudition and original approach- including the artist's sensibility in discussing 'reality' - all demand a more careful reading and a lot of study. You talk of seeing - an issue I am giddily aware of, having regained full sight after cataract operations. Things that appeared discolored and out of focus have regained their true clarity. My experience has shown me how one's viewpoint can be so limited and distorted, yet one thinks it is the absolute truth. The interesting thing about reading the various posts here is to realize how many such 'truths' there are!

I wish you all the best

Vladimir

Hello Tom,

Since we already had a good number of exchanges in these blogs all last year, I'm sure you formed your views on my ideas. But I ask you to take a fresh look! The essay will help you see how one result relates to all others. It is a clear convinceing summary of most all of my papers. The whole is much greater than the sum of the (in)descrete parts. But the key idea in all of these (the Rosetta Stone, as it were) is the following:

"Planck's Law of blackbody radiation is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement".

This I argue explains why the blackbody spectrum obtained experimentally is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.

Please comment on the above and support my efforts to get this result 'peer reviewed' by the 'panel of experts'.

All the best,

Constantinos Ragazas

Hi Tom,

congratulations for this beautiful essay. I like what you said: "we can see reality from here. Because seeing it is all that makes it real".

Best regards,

Cristi

Constantinos,

I can't imagine what you want from me, when you are already positioned in the "top 35" who get reviewed, and I'm not. I think it's a rather strange and unfair game, when the voters -- like partners in a card game -- can freely signal across the table to one another.

The only winning strategy is to fold one's hand and walk away.

As you suggest, you already know what I think. I heartily sympathize with your desire to have all physics described by continuous functions. I think we should leave it at that.

Tom

Tom,

More than anything what I want from you is to read and study my essay. There you will find a complete summary of all the 'parts' to tit-bits we have on occassion discussed. My hope is that if you see the whole picture you may also change some of your views about the individual results.

My commitment is to have these results be considered seriously by the panel of experts. This is not about me! I don't care otherwise about winning. I am sorry that you feel this is a 'horse race'. It's not for me!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Yet if reality is irrelevant to science, why bother with digital vs. analog at all? Because:

The boundary between continuous experience and discrete event is the only demonstrably objective boundary, and it's where all the interesting stuff is.

Thomas,

I like your description of reality and the varied representations of it.

I like the distinction above. My prejudice is analogue with the continuous nature of the universe/s.

Jim Hoover

Tom,

What this contest presents for me and some others is perhaps the only opportunity we have of being heard, of being taken seriously - if we were to make it to the final group. Judge our zeal to get high enough community ratings entirely on that! If it was a 'pillow fight' I simply would not have bothered. And yes, I have tried to have my papers reviewed by 'the establishement' and couldn't even get beyond the 'name recognition' first step. So please don't tell me about the 'tactics' some in this contest you think use to simply get heard! To think otherwise is to totally miss the passion and commitment (not to mention the duty) we feel to the 'truths' we carry.

When and if you read my essay, please apply to it the intellectual fairness that it deserves. Any other attitude will once agin miss the mark! Start by asking "how can I make sense of this" rather than "how can I make no sense of this". Let reason and honest discourse determine the final outcome.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Constantinos,

I think I'll pop over to your forum and talk about nothing but my essay and my zeal to have it judged. Of course, I'm not going to do that, but do you get the point?

And it never occurs to me that it's my responsibility to make sense of an author's work. I have this silly notion that making sense is your job, not mine. You give me the impression that if I agree you've made a breakthrough, I'm fair, honest and reasonable, and if I disagree I'm not smart enough to understand it.

Look, C., I know the peer review system doesn't work perfectly and I too am concerned that blind review may be a thing of the past, with "name recognition" playing a role that it never should have played. However, there are compensating factors -- the opportunities to be published and read are greater than ever in the history of science publishing. A web page, an ArXiv paper, a blog, can be far more influential than a journal article or a book. This is not an exaggeration -- Grisha Perelman published not one word of his proof of the Thurston Geometrization Conjecture in a "legitimate" mathematics journal, yet there's hardly a mathematician who knows the subject who disagrees that the proof is correct. You think Perelman cares a whit? It's the mathematics that matters, not the politics or the sociology. The proof would not be more or less true if it were published in the Annals of Mathematics instead of the ArXiv, but it it were, I can say with confidence that it would be read by far fewer people.

This contest is hardly your "only opportunity" to be heard. Of course, being heard and being right are independent of one another, no matter how much zeal one possesses. I'm sure the members of Al Qaida have more zeal for their cause than most, yet I am not disposed to even discuss why we should compromise the principles of democracy to accommodate their religious demands. Are you?

In my long career as a writer, I've gotten some of the nastiest rejection letters and some of the nicest, with most falling into the high points of indifference in the Gaussian distribution of responses. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing. Most all of life's events fall into such a curve. I will cite one rejection note I got many years ago, handwritten, that means more to me than all the acceptances, whether for science or non-science articles, that I've had before or since: "Interesting and plausible physical ideas, not accompanied by a mathematical theory that would incorporate them." The editor: David Finkelstein. Fair, honest and reasonable.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

I only wish it was as simple as 'telling the truth' and 'being understood'. But the history of science and of people tells us this is just not the case. I am not opposed to honest critique of any result. But before that is possible, the critic must first understand the claim in the terms and logic in which it is presented -- before a meaningful critique can be meaningful. One thing that I observe in my observations of how people interact is that some seek to understand, while others choose to stobornly refuse to understand. You could probably fill in your own experiences to this picture frame.

You mentioned Perelman and the mathematical results he was able to bring forth outside the mainstream establishment. That is absolutely correct. In mathematics, logical validity is the ONLY criterion. It's the reason why I was drawn to math at a very early age. But it is different in Physics! More than mathematical validity, there is also a dominant 'physical view' that determines if a 'truth' is acceptable or not. I will spear you the many many historical examples of this.

The results in my essay are all mathematically argued and logically valid. But the 'physical view' is 'continuous' rather than 'discrete' and does not use 'energy quanta'. It simply cuts against the grain of most conventional thinking. The reaction to this by physicists is "disbelief" rather than "refutation".

I apologize for takin up space in your forum to engage you in such conversation. Fault my naive view that such an honest and good conversation can occur where ever like motivated people can be found.

Best wishes,

Constantinos