Search FQXi

If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013

Contest closed to Entries. Submit Community Votes by August 7, 2013; Public Votes by October 31, 2013.


Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
April 18, 2014

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2012 [back]
TOPIC: Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT
Essay Abstract

The current issue between philosophy and science over the embedded past assumption that space is 'nothing' is found to be highly relevant. Consistent with the 'instabilities' found and with n-body dark matter (ΛCDM) modelling we consider space simply as a diffuse dielectric medium. Impacts on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity are non-zero but far from harmful. Challenging the assumption that space is 'empty' reveals eight related assumptions forming a belief system of painted scenery on 2D frames with foggy perceptions of space and time. We identify and expose each assumption in Proper Time. The false pictures then evaporate leaving a clear and coherent reality. We find that Shakespeare's “All the world's a stage” is parochial and act out the play in deep space. In a contemporary interpretation Eddy and the Electrons play a lead role alongside fast ladies Pretty Penny and the Protons. New relationships are found hidden beneath the old assumptions. A coherent classical relativistic kinetic and causal universe emerges, with classical effects driven by a known quantum mechanism, inconsistent with the assumption that QM and Relativity can't couple.

Author Bio

Architect, environmental science and renewable energy consultant. Fellow and member of learned bodies in astronomy and physics, and perpetual research student in; optical science, meteorology, structures, fluid dynamics, dynamic logic, philosophy, history of physics, observational cosmology etc. Studied Canterbury, PCL/ University of Westminster and in consultancy. Born UK 1951.

Download Essay PDF File

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 15:16 GMT
Hello Peter,

Happy to see your participation on this contest.

Good luck.

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 18:04 GMT

Thanks. The strict rationalisation and consistency with empirical evidence is something I hope you warm to. I wish you well.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 12:33 GMT
Thanks Eckard for the typo proofing. (readers see below). Also P8 Para's 2-3 make more sense as;

Assumption 7. 'Ballistic' Stellar Aberration. A hidden implicit sub-assumption is that the barycentric 'medium' does not exist, which confounds theory. If Lodge had known of the IAU Barycentric frame, and of KRR, in 1893 he would not have used his lab to represent the ECI frame, incorrectly disallowing Stellar Aberration from waves. Lodge assumed the 'path' of a 'ray' entering a spinning glass disc is 'dragged' by the glass, so giving aberration in the wrong direction (aberration is ahead of our orbital path). However, the rest frame of the glass, NOT the lab represents an observer on Earth. The optical axis is then reversed as in KRR8 (see Fig.4), not needing ballistics, and with a quantum mechanism deriving the SR postulates.

A connected assumption is of a single Earth centred frame. Kinetic only aberration uses the non-rotating ionospheric ECI frame, but there are TWO! Atmospheric refraction (greatest at longer optical paths near the horizon)13 and an additional kinetic rotational vector explains why local surface light speed is c/n. This 2nd 'frame' resolves the residual errors of laser lunar ranging and stellar aberration.14 Annihilation can't be 100% over short distances, leaving the birefringence found by Raman (1921) and explaining scintillation ('twinkling'), ellipticity and consistently low but non-zero interferometer results.


Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 12:22 GMT
Hi Peter,

:) always in the rational road. You know, it is our only one solution after all. The determinism is a parameter so important to have these rational datas.The sciences are exact and precise.The good universities teach the foundamentals. The rest is vain !

The medecines must be rational, like in the chemistry or the biology or the physics or the maths....

In fact , this universal 3D objectivity is essential for all correct axiomatizations of these foundamental laws.

If not, we have pseudo sciences. Can we teach false sciences ? no of course , fortunaly for our technologies and models furthermore.

I wish you all the best in this contest Peter.


Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 16:08 GMT

You know what I am going to say.

1 SR, as defined by Einstein, involves:

-no gravitational forces

-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary (which is in effect, stillness)

-fixed shape bodies at rest (no dimension alteration)

-light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed (no curvature)

In simple language, constant light speed occurred in 1905 because the condition in vacuo was invoked, while everything else was not in vacuo, ie these two could not co-exist. In SR everything is in vacuo. In GR nothing is.

I have posted a piece explaining this, though I have a slightly better verion which I will post in its place soon, but had to go out today. However, I think the definition of SR is a red herring anyway to your ideas.

2 Light is a physically existent phenomenon. It therefore acts like one. Its acquired role in sight is irrelevant. It might be that it somehow physically ‘refreshes’ on a constant basis as it travels, so its speed is, physically, more or less constant.

3 Measuring its speed has nothing to do with observation. Frames are about referencing. It was not a theory of observation. Measuring anything (including light) involves, by definition, a reference. This could be any, but once selected it must be used consistently in order to ensure that all resulting measurements are comparable. The point about moving (ie changing momentum, not constant momentum) is that, supposedly, this means there is dimension alteration occurring also, since both are a function of the same cause (ie an imbalance in the forces encountered).


Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 18:20 GMT

Yes. You're not shy of repeating your consistent opinion. But it is also seems possible this may wear down a 'groove' from which the view of other aspects can be compromised.

Interesting that your view includes that the Electrodynamics of moving bodies is about "stillness". I agree with your points otherwise, and also with observers being 'at rest' in a local medium, (frame K) but also with most other matter in the universe in motion relatively K'+.

I also agree definitions of old theories are all 'red herrings' to more consistent ones. But if light 'refreshes' by interactions and scattering it can thus be 'changed', precisely as refraction, Yes?

It is the first part your item 3 which I find erroneous. Observation can only be by a lens, which can only be made of matter, and it cannot 'observe' without detection, ergo 'interaction'. All lenses have a refractive index, which is a constant. We cannot ignore the few consistent parts of current theory! There is no referencing problem with this model. All things move. Yes? Yet all lenses find light doing c once detected!!? I simply propose that this is not the massive problem imagined.

I've read your essay and will comment.


Paul Reed replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 05:26 GMT

“Interesting that your view includes that the Electrodynamics of moving bodies is about "stillness".

‘In effect, stillness’, ie there is no changing rate of momentum in SR, only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion is involved, Einstein said so.

“and also with observers”

SR & GR are not about observation. They are concerned with referencing, because there must be a reference in order to make any judgement, and according to them, matter and light are affected when subjected to a differential in gravitational force. Considerations about the speed of light were what sparked the whole train of thought off. And then speed of light was substituted for distance in an incorrect equation (see my posts 11/7 19.33 for that mistake and 13/7 11.24 for SR).

“But if light 'refreshes' by interactions and scattering it can thus be 'changed', precisely as refraction, Yes?”

If the speed of the physical effect known as light is somehow constantly refreshed, ie always maintained at its start speed, then it will have, physically, a constant speed. It could be a chain reaction for example. Obviously there will be some occasions when some impediment prevents this. This is a possible explanation as to how light travels. The real point being that there is no need to find it constant. Which brings me to the point you disagree with.

Light is just a physically existent phenomenon. The fact that it has acquired a functional role in the sensory system known as sight is irrelevant to its physical existence. In fact it ceases as at the point of reception, just like it does if it hits a brick wall instead. Calibrating the speed of light is the same logical exercise as calibrating the speed of anything else. Observation in this context is not the processing of light in the sensory system, it is the point of reception of light at the eye, ie just like the point of reception at the brick wall. The eye has evolved to make use of, with the rest of the sensory system, the configuration of light, the bricks have not.

“There is no referencing problem with this model”

There is. Because for calibrations to be comparable, the same reference must be used to formulate all those calibrations. The speed (or indeed any attribute) can only be stated wrt something else, and whilst any something else (ie reference) could be selected, once chosen then it, and it only, must be used.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 18:59 GMT

"..the same reference must be used to formulate all those calibrations". Yes, I am only too aware you take the pre Galilean view of this, which is of course also pre Einsteinian. The central tenet of the Galilean revolution was intellectual holism. Meaning that there were many equivalent reference frames (matter with states of motion and non-zero dimensions) and they were all equivalent. i.e. each one is a 'rest frame' for the purposes of the measurement of light speed.

Einstein (and I know you now feel yourself a lone expert but remember others have studied his work and thoughts for many decades and not quite all have it wrong), set out to explain the very many confounding astronomical and interferometry findings he set out as postulates. He thus went a step further in using all kinetic states as representing rest frames. Each rest frame IS a local reference for phenomena travelling within that frame, i.e.= c. This explains observation. Your single reference point seems poorly considered as it infers some relevant single 'absolute' frame, which is what we escaped from courtesy of Gallileo. I'm not sure you really wish to revert, but you should understand that this is the inevitable simple consequence of your assertion of a single reference. 'Kinetic nesting' is an important concept to grasp, equivalent to Einstions moving spaces s within S. (1953). Investigating the PDL I discuss would help greatly.

I do agree with your improved explanation of 'stillness' above, by which you really meant lack of acceleration (change' of kinetic state) which of course you must consider that we did all well know. The 'stillness' as you call it is always the consistent reference point. Your comment only indicates you have not comprehended the complex relationships explored in my essay and should probably read it more slowly (that doesn't go for you alone of course so please don't take offence). Do revert when you have.

Best wishes


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 17:39 GMT

Your new essay is again a demanding one to me. I am perhaps correct when I for instance read k as km and "of of index" as "of index" and when I added an "are" between "There no atoms".

I faced similar worries when I read a paper by Reginald T. Cahill who for instance confused his Figs 1 and 2: A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected", arXiv:physics 0610076v1 11 Oct 2006. Sorry, at the moment I am unable to type the correct slash between physics and the subsequent number.

Your essay reminds me; you are familiar with the refractive index n. Cahill argues that n is essential for the gas-mode Michelson interferometer. I cannot see this from his equations 16-18, and I wonder if he got support. Cahill wrote on p. 8: "... the interferometer can only operate as a detector of absolute motion when not in vacuum (n=1) ...". May I ask you for your comment?

Thank you in advance.


Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 22:38 GMT
Hello Eckard,

Hope you are well,

you do not paraticipate this year?


Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 23:17 GMT
Hi Peter,

Glad you have entered another essay this year.I have read through it but will have to read it again piece by piece to fully appreciate what you have written. There is -such a lot- in it (especially since you are talking about the subject of nothing). I really like the way you have presented it as a play. That breaks it up nicely into bite size pieces, that I feel I will be able to tackle and comprehend. It will require some dedication to the task though. You have been very thorough with your explanations and evidence.It does seem far more reasonable to me that there is something rather then nothing,disturbance of which can account for the various kinds of field. Good luck in the competition. I hope you get lots of positive feedback.

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 16:44 GMT
Hi Steve,

This contests asks for wrong basic assumptions. Peter offers again his idea that the speed of light in vacuum equals c only locally.

Nonetheless, I appreciate his hints to optical phenomena, and I urgently hope he will comment on Cahill.

What about my new essay, I am sure; any serious analysis of the most basic assumptions will substantiate doubts in accepted tenets and hurt a lot of feelings. Therefore I have to work hard in order to argue as compelling and easily understandable as possible.



Avtar Singh wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 17:44 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson:

I enjoyed reading your paper and would like to mention that the concluding statement – “We've here falsified a set of related beliefs, allowing removal of the basic assumption that 'nothing' exists. A new …… kinetic basis to Einstein's conceptions and a Quantum Relativity…” has been quantitatively and mathematically described in the Relativistic Universe Expansion model presented in my posted paper – “From Absurd to Elegant Universe”. The paper concludes that “Nothingness” never exists and what is perceived as nothingness (vacuum) actually entails all the contents (energy) of the universe, howsoever in varying forms and states.

Please read my paper and I would greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments.


Avtar Singh

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 12:15 GMT

Thank you. I'm glad the kinetic basis for 'Quantum Relativity' and it's importance is understood by somebody at least, and I greatly look forward to reading your paper, which it sounds may be very consistent.


Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 18:26 GMT

Thank you for writing about a complex subject, the assumptions concerning the "vacuum of space", which often goes by the names "void of space", "empty space", or "free space".

At least you are willing to use the term "medium" or "dielectric media" in referring to a vacuum, because it has defined characteristics, permittivity and permeability. It appears a vacuum has the ideal characteristics, the ratio of permittivity to permeability, for essentially lossless electromagnetic propagation.

Would it surprise anyone that the Higgs field has permittivity and permeability?

Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 19:28 GMT

The last line in your sonnet is interesting. I have followed various forums that have mentioned the repeated Mars space craft losses. I found the excuse used for the one Mars spacecraft loss, someone had used ft/sec rather than m/sec, absolutely absurd. Perhaps someone from JPL, whose career is no longer in jeopardy, will bring out the facts about that one official excuse.

Do you realize that a slight change in permittivity would cause all the Mars spacecraft radar calculations to be wrong? In the earlier space craft, the computers and descent propulsion reaction systems were much slower than on the recent ones, which now allow a faster correction to an inherent error, but not an optimum correction. As far as I know, none of the Mars spacecraft carried a permittivity measurement system.

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 12:29 GMT

I agree we hide from realism, such as any link between the many known qualities of the ISM and the likes of the Higgs field. I think very close to 'lossless propagation' but not quite, which may derive a degree of redshift to finally consign increasing expansion to where it belongs.

Yes, I agree entirely about Mars. They've also lost many others and nearly lost Huygens-Cassini last year. the cosmological model is clearly hopelessly wrong, but nobody dares tamper with the assumptions it's built on. The Mars ionosphere is weak compared to Earth's but they ignore it at their peril!


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 23:02 GMT
Dear Peter,

It's clear that following a trail for several years leads us deeper into the forest. Things invisible from outside the forest come into view. If I could attempt to summarize your last year's essay it would be that the reality of light transmission through the universe encounters many different regions of (plasma) media and the the speed of light changes upon entry and exit from each region. Upon first reading it appears that your current essay expands upon this theme to analyze more carefully what happens at different scales and different contexts, including relative motion, and what assumptions are appropriate. Key statements from your current essay appear to be:

"Observer frame matters... understanding of this remains poor..." and "Matter, and dielectric media, can and do all move, so ours is an option not originally considered."

I always appreciate Einstein's statement: "..there exists no space "empty of field." This is an underlying assumption of my own current essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, so I agree with you that " assumption of a perfect vacuum is required or valid for a unified SR/QM"

Finally, a recognition of reality:

"Doubts will always enter the minds of those asked to shed so many assumptions." and from your sonnet: "...physics needs ontology, philosophy needs nature."

I think you've written a significant essay. Congratulations.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 14:59 GMT

I do like the term "significant essay", thank you most humbly. I also agree you've picked out some very salient points.

In pure physics terms I think it important that we recognise the importance of assimilating the two ignored optical effects (page 8) into current theory. In combination they then allow the complete unification of physics in terms of logically explaining the postulates or SR directly with a quantum mechanism. I perhaps didn't labour this point enough as it has been consistently missed. Does it not come across?

And the illogicality and causality issue with the 'ballistic' refraction model, which would imply 'ripping' a section out of the causal wave plane and 'hinging' it so some light has to stop and other parts do more than c to 'catch up.' (Fig 3). Do the mega implications of that not emerge clearly?

I've just found my 'mutual exclusivity' axiom echoes Boscovich's 'axiom of Impenetrability', which is nice.

I was also pleased to find high consistency with your again excellent, essay, though yours is as densely packed as mine and I need a further read to properly extract all it's meaning.

Best of luck.


Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 00:26 GMT
It is interesting to note identification of all prevailing substance as diffuse dielectric medium.

In picophysics, we believe that the speed of light reduces near matter due to increased density of space. So practically both "diffuse dielectric medium" and PicoPhysics results on speed of light may be similar.

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 15:06 GMT

Thanks, increased density of dielectrics certainly occurs closer to massive bodies, and reduces em wave speed, but the main resolution of the anomalies and paradoxes emerges from the kinetic element. This has been 'hiding' behind Fresnel's n and poor ontological thought processes.

None the less It seems our theses are consistent and I look forward to reading yours.


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 01:02 GMT
Dear Peter

Bravo for another spirited essay where you invoke experimental facts from cosmology to deconstruct Special Relativity and related assumptions about the Ether. I got a bit lost in some of the details, but I got a feel for what you are doing: standing up for the right of Nothing to be a most important Something! Bravo as you know I have built a whole theory on that assumption, and might add "apart from this Something there is Nothing". I agreed with most of the statements that I could grasp immediately such as "We violate no key assumptions of SR by invoking preferred background frames because our frames are not the absolute frame which SR falsifies." Note my "One Absolute Universal Frame" sketched in the figure accompanying Q3 on p.5 of my FQXI paper. Other parts of your paper refer to phenomena and experiments and notions that I need to research or study more to understand. Reading many FQXI essays daily and thinking how to respond to various queries makes me answer Yes to the question in your sonnet: "overload your head?".

Your Fig. 4B reminded me of a Phase Array radar unit able to direct a wavefront in various angular directions even though the Array is itself planar. But I guess in 3D space a more applicable analogy would be a GRIN lens (gradient index of refraction). And with this happy expression I again congratulate you for a very interesting essay!


Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 16:30 GMT

Thank you. Nothing indeed does not exist. I look forward to your further comments after your studies. I can probably provide more links if needed.

Yes, both GRIN lenses and Phase Array radar (etc.) systems are highly analogous with my 'rotation' and Figs (I assume you meant 3B and 4.). I didn't have room to include a reference, but for anyone interested an easy intro is here;

This blows the whole assumptive basis of 'light Rays', 'light paths' and ray vectors' out of the water as not causal on refraction. This then allows the logic of physics to emerge. Indeed we have not yet found any actual mechanism or complete intuitive explanation for refraction! Yet most physicists will say 'yes of course we know how it works!!'

I think your essay may be the perfect 'previous chapter' to mine, and I'm impressed you resisted the temptation to cram your beautiful overview with too much, which I fear I have.

Best of luck


Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 04:20 GMT

Thanks for your response. I am honored that you felt my essay might be used to sort of pave the way for your views. As I said the confidence I had in writing it comes from a vision of a simple functional physics such as my much-vaunted Beautiful Universe Theory. I think we both have a similar approach to a an imagined ToE of local interactions.

The phased-array example you provided is very pertinent to our discussion but I do not think it annuls a vectorial approach to analysis. The vectors from each emitter of the array add up at any point in the field, and a wavefront is generated. Normal to the wavefronts energy flows along streamlines (defined by the Poynting vectors). It is only when the wavefronts are straight that light goes along straight rays, but in most cases (except that of turbulent flow where things become very messy) the vectors add up to curved streamlines. Please see my analysis in Figs. 10-13 of my Cancellation of Diffraction paper to see how straight vectors can describe curved streamlines

Cheers and good luck!


Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 10:25 GMT

It's I who am honoured. I only agree to a limited extent about vector analysis. Vectors do of course represent 'something', but we have been fooled into thinking that something is the actual path of a 'light ray'.

I did scan your 'streamlines' quickly quite recently, and believe they are quite analogous to a gradual rotation of re-emission. In fact I've slipped in the odd additional reference to your work in my draft. I'll send the relevant bits in due course. But there are two separate things going on, as two effects using the same process; One kinetic, at the surface with charge asymmetry due to lateral motion, and one in the medium, where the gradual change can be better described geometrically (I agree with a 'curved HFP') and may be more about harmonics? I don't yet have a consistent understanding of the whole set of relationships, except that it is consistent with extinction and birefringence in a medium. Have you considered those relationships?


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Mr. Jackson,

Unlike several episodes of the Seinfeld show, I am afraid I was quite unable to understand much more of your essay other than its title. This is entirely my fault. I would like to make just one comment. I humbly think that one real Universe could only ever have one real unit of anything. I get suspicious of the mention of pluralities, especially abstract pluralities such as protons and particles and waves and vectors and numbers and quantum accumulations. I deeply wish that this sad inadequacy on my part were not so.

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 17:45 GMT

No need to be humble about it. You are right. There can only be one existence at a time, and anything referred to must have corresponding physical existence, otherwise there is something wrong with the concept. This is the science of physical reality, not the religion of it.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 17:03 GMT

I hope the second meaning of the title also emerged. I also tried to make the last line as comprehensible as the first so I hope you got it? (See Frank's comments above). I'm not sure I ever understood any of Seinfeld so you are at an intellectual advantage.

I agree entirely about "one REAL unit of everything" particularly time. Paul seemed to miss the below too, so I'll elucidate, by analogy;

You and 2 mates synchronise 3 clocks, one takes one a long way away. Each is ticking at the same REAL time, so let's say they flash once a second. Now the distant one approaches you at half light speed. Your mate with it checks his watch and it is definitely running at the same unchanged speed, but Lo! The flashes of light that you observe as the clock approaches you are LESS than one second apart! What foul trickery is this? it is not. You are not seeing REAL time, because you cannot comply with the rules of 'Proper Time' (to do so you need to be 'moving' at the same speed as the clock).

Your other mate now flies off in the other direction at half c. His clock still emits the flashes at REAL 1 second intervals, yet, aghast! they are now received by you at much longer intervals. Is time now 'dilated'!!??

Of course not. You are again not seeing REAL time because the position of the emitter changes between emissions and light has a finite propagation speed irrespective of the emitter. i.e. I am introducing 'APPARENT' time, in ALL CASES except where the observer is at rest with the emitter. Otherwise the flash sequence is 'Doppler shifted'. In reality there is only ever ONE absolute time! We can simply find it for any clock moving at v relative to us, the observer, by adding or subtracting v. Your kinetic reference is then always your own 'rest' state of inertial motion K.

Is that not far more simple and comprehensible than Seinfeld and the LT?


Paul Reed replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 09:36 GMT

“I agree entirely about "one REAL unit of everything" particularly time. Paul seemed to miss the below too”

I missed this post. This is not how timing works. Timing is an extrinsic assessment of the rate of change between realities. So, one takes any timing device (which could be any change sequence, but it is best to have a good one, snail movement just doesn’t cut...

view entire post

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT

Very clever playwriting. Metaphorically brilliant. I'm impressed with the merging of science and humanities.

As for content, I will have to labor in your arbor.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 18:53 GMT

I'm humbled by your appreciation. I see science and humanities as simply aspects of one nature with a false division. I'm also making the point (Edwin spotted) that philosophy and science are both worse off for complete divorce.

But the main thrust is the content and evidence. I hope you do labour a little to rationalise the over dense points and massive implications. I've rewritten the penultimate page "Assumption 7; Aberration' paragraphs (3rd post down at the top here) to hopefully make more sense. (I'd 'over pruned' it to meet the limit!).

I recall I liked your effort last year and will try to read this years soon.

best wishes


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 16:38 GMT
Hi Peter,

Just read for the first time your essay, it is not nothing...

I know that the speed of light and the relative localities where it passes since long are a search item to you, I see that you have gone further and further into the problem, we can go not to the lower infinite in my opinion, once reaching the Planck length there is no longer causality, so no longer before or after so no speed of light because there is no A and B to pass.

This is one of the subjects of my ezssay I am now struggling with , want to come in end of july.

For now I am going to reread your essay and wish you all the luck there is in our not nothing.


(ps you did not give reactions untill now , took a holiday in nothing ?)

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 19:10 GMT

I was called back to Sirius B9 I'm afraid to explain why man's making such poor progress deciphering nature. Nearly had to give up, but luckily your post was just in time. There is hope for us! Well done. (Also moved house, worked and went sailing).

I agree about the ~Planck length, otherwise we have infinite regression of frames, but I do not guess what we have no evidence of. I don't consider that science. I will just define evidenced parameters. As you know from Architects training ultimate free thinking doesn't mean just inconsitent speculation.

Do comment on my evidenced proposition that causality is breached by mainstream assumption about refraction, exposed when considering a plane wavefront. The full ontological construction of Relativity derived direct from a quantum mechanism is almost complete now, but can't all be jammed into a short essay. Unfortunately beliefs and assumptions will probably keep it hidden from most in any case.

I wish you luck with your essay and look forward to reading it.


Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 15:21 GMT
Hi Peter, sorry for my late reply, I was thrown back on an alpha probability in Total Simultaneity. The wave front you mention is in fact what I describe as the antenna character of our consciousness that is able to receive signals from your wave fronts even if they are not yet conscious awareness (this is only achieved after a certain data procesing transmission delay in our Deterministic causal universe. I changed already 2 times the title of my essay, and you are right 9 pages is NOTHING to explain what is happening on your subjective simultaneity sphere. (all things from my essay)


Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 16:14 GMT

It is apparent from the various essays submitted that yours is one of the few that actually identifies one of the "core" basic assumptions that has led so many scientific theories astray.

Perfectly constant characteristics of a vacuum everywhere is just one of the assumptions that is required for Einstein's theories, and many of the theories in astrophysics. There was another basic assumption that was considered "settled science" at the time Einstein developed his various theories, propagated electromagnetic (EM) fields were transverse only to the axis of propagation. EM fields are now being produced with longitudinal components, for over a decade now, which negates the assumption that EM fields cannot produce an attractant force in the direction of propagation.

Georgina Parry (topic 1316) stated in her Magic section how various assumptions have become accepted as facts, "the human tendency to draw strong conclusions from incomplete information." Einstein had incomplete information, based upon what is known now versus what was known 100+ years ago, but is seems questioning Einstein can be a career ending stance, considering how the scientific authority structure enforces the views of their favorites.

I stayed with what I considered a basic core assumption about units of measure in my essay, topic 1294. I didn't mention the discovery process that resulted in the concept identified in the IEEE paper referenced in my essay, but it started with challenging an assumption that was more than a century old. It seems contemporary scientists have become so comfortable with all the old assumptions that they no longer recognize they are assumptions.

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 14:41 GMT

Thanks. I was beginning to wonder if it was just me thinking that! I agree with all you say, including the veracity of Georgina's similar point. I think your own essay is stronger for focussing on one subject. Rather like Edwins, mine drags in a series of related topics and evidence that many need 90 pages to do real justice to.

I've just had someone suggest that rotational rate is a real physical quality when frequency may not be due to it's reliance on time! We have even forgotten what is physically real. To paraphrase Bragg; 'Familiarity breeds ignorance'.


Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 06:11 GMT

"Perfectly constant characteristics of a vacuum everywhere is just one of the assumptions that is required for Einstein's theories"

Was it? In SR he just invokes it as a condition, not what physically exists. In GR he makes no such assumption. The ether, which is in effect that vacuum, comprises particles which have an effect on others travelling through it, which includes light.

Peter is right in identifying, physically, how that which we call light, might travel, and indeed at a more or less constant rate, having always started at the same speed ("atomic shattering"), and how it can do this but remain unchanged (virtually).


Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 17:53 GMT
Paul (Peter)

It seems that some people with good academic credentials do not consider that a "perfect vacuum" is just a condition of SR. Several years ago, I had an email exchange with an IEEE editor (with PhD in physics, since moved on), who had written a special article describing how the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly might be explained. I stated that a variable permittivity/permeability based on the inverse square of the distance from the Sun would explain the anomaly. The following is the editors response:

"Your suggestion of making the permittivity and/or permeability of the vacuum radially dependent on distance from the sun, and so altering the speed of light, would indeed produce results that look like the Pioneer Anomaly. However, this would undermine the basis of relativity theory, by eliminating the equivalence of inertial reference frames[1], and so also wipe out the standard model (in particular, having a variable vacuum speed of light would have a severe impact on the predictions of time dilation, which have been experimentally verified in particle accelerators, albeit only on Earth.)

It seems the simple solution or even a suggestion for a solution, aka Occam's Razor, can't be used if it conflicts with SR.

One of my other mentors at the time my IEEE editor email exchange took place was a Prof. Emeritus of Elec. Engr. I provided him with my email exchange with the IEEE editor and he responded, "Frank, you must understand that the special theory of relativity (SRT) is the holy grail. It's the place where religion and science become one. If one has the audacity to suggest other possibilities, he is forever shunned, banned, and is a candidate for being burned at the stake."

Some of the currently observed oddities about the "vacuum" were not known when Einstein developed and published his theories, thus, reinforcing my view that Einstein reached conclusions with "incomplete information" (thanks to the Georgina Parry essay on a way to examine assumptions).

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 05:43 GMT

By condition I mean a presumed theoretical caveat. Not what is in 'space'. Einstein was clear about this:

Einstein (1922) Ether and The Theory of Relativity:

“It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its...

view entire post

Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 18:20 GMT
Paul & Peter,

Einstein developed his theories based upon what was known at the time he made them, which included the assumptions he used. He revised his theories as new information became available. I seriously doubt Einstein would support a curved space theory of gravity from what is known today. The link below is a 1920 revision.

Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1920)

Einstein was aware of the Newtonian instantaneous influence at a distance, which is required to keep our planetary orbits from becoming ever increasing spirals. Einstein never mentioned permittivity and permeability in respect to his theories. I suspect Einstein did not know how to accommodate instantaneous influence at a distance and the presence of permittivity and permeability, thus he ignored them. Someone pushed him on the instantaneous influence at a distance issue, as he eventually responded with his "spooky" action at a distance statement.

There is a simple (ala Occam's Razor) explanation why the influence of gravity has a different "velocity" than the propagation velocity of the gravity field, but the explanation would invalidate SRT. The same explanation would accommodate the concept of quantum entanglement.

No need to go down the rabbit hole where we are constantly being taken, led by the disciples of the Mad Hatter.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 15:04 GMT

I agree there are many interpretations an misinterpretations of SR, including Einstein's own machinations. I suspect detailed analysis of what he did and did not say early on is far less important to science (though not to beliefs) than you might think. His final search for the Unified Field Theory was the unfinished culmination of his work. Having studied his life work and evolution of thoughts this is the point I picked it up from, and the solution offered by the DFM. i.e. it is not intended to be within' his earlier work but to help achieve his final goal and show his later conceptions therein to be logically correct by unifying it with QM.

Franks characterisation of the world and scientific environment Einstein was working within is important and correct.


Paul Reed replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 20:02 GMT

There are indeed, but isn't the starting point to understand what the man himself said SR was? Indeed, the confusion between 1905 & SR is the source of the problem really. SR, as defined by Einstein is simple. In fact it cannot be wrong, or indeed prove anything, because the circumstance in which it occurs is so conditioned.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 10:35 GMT

Yes, that is indeed where my long journey started. It can of course be 'wrong' if any one assumption is wrong (trivia of logic) but you make a good point in saying that it's domain may be so limited by it's assumption of empty space that it may simply be irrelevant.

What the DFM does really then is expand it's relevance to space as a medium. It does this by offering the third 'background frame' option, not considered.

He escaped from the illogical single absolute background frame by removing it completely. The DFM option is of co-moving frames which represent physically real and bounded inertial systems. All the paradoxes fall away, all anomalies are resolved, and SR is unified with QM. The problem is that, as Frank points out, it is different to what we're indoctrinated with so is unfamiliar and thus assumed wrong (as Feynman predicted the correct solution would be).


Paul Reed replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 19:37 GMT

Well I think, as per my response to you about 'ether/space', they 'wrote off' any effect on dimension that is caused by travelling through this 'medium', which certainly is something (as Einstein said), against time variance (which actually does not exist) which is accommodated for in the Lorentz transformation. Physically, it might be that matter travelling through 'space' and interacting with that which constitutes 'space' does encounter some dimensional effect, ie what you are referring to as background. This is in addition to the effect of gravitational forces which are 'transmitted' through the same 'space'. Now, that definitely causes a 'step change'(ie 'noticeable' alteration in dimension and momentum), supposedly. My point here being that the first effect is omnipresent. So apart from being similar to trying to track the leaf movement attributable to continental drift!, since it is all pervading there is no reference to establish relative difference. Unless, rather like reality expansion, the rates change in particular circumstances. But I suggest you go down the pub and have a couple of beers rather than tackling that.

SR does not need unifying with anything, it is a purely hypothetical circumstance that is bound to work, because it is so caveated. It's a bit like me defining cows as being...biological defintion of cow...that are just black and white. It is true in accord with its own definition. GR being the entire population of cows. The problem with relativity is in its interpretation through simultaneity and space time. Dimension alteration may or may not occur, and in respect of those two possibilities. QM is a different issue, this relies on a flase presumption as to what measurement does, and what for the most part is being measured. Because measurement (which is a form of sensing) cannot affect reality, it existed previously, and in most measurements it is not reality per se, anyway, that is being measured, but an effect resulting from an interaction with it (aka light). And reality must occur with certainty, it does not exist in some sort of 'muddled' state. This is a classic case of 'please do not adjust your sets we are having problems with transmission' gone wrong. The problem is us, not reality.


Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT

Since my last post, in researching material for a paper I am writing, I read a paper that sheds more light on the assumption issues. The author, J.H. Field, who has a email address, used the term hypothesis and hypotheses, vice assumption(s), to describe what is influencing scientific thought. The paper was published in Physica Scripta - PHYS SCR , vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 702-717, 2006 DOI: 10.1088/0031-8949/74/6/018 , plus it is on arXiv.

Classic electrodynamics

At the end of section 6, the author states, "Regrettably science is, at the time of this writing, riddled by many 'hypotheses' of the type referred to in the first of the above quotations. One such hypothesis, that has persisted through much of the 19th century and all of the 20th is that: 'No physical influence can propagate faster than the speed of light'. This is contradicted by the arguments given above and, as discussed in the following section, also by the results of some recent experiments."

I note he used one of the several superluminal references I have cited in my new paper.

I found the term "virtual photon" and its characteristics interesting. It seems the "virtual photon" is a one-legged version of the traditional two-legged EM photon that has both an electric and magnetic field. Field didn't hesitate to use the term "instantaneous" numerous times in his paper. His paper passed peer review.

The paper I am preparing describes the mechanism that results in an "instantaneous" influence, and surprisingly, it uses the principles behind the virtual photon, which I had never heard of before.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 11:03 GMT

The Mad Hatter indeed still influences the topology we inhabit. I agree with almost all you say. But of course Einstein in EPR was decrying action at a distance.

I am only happy with a few rational aspects of supposed 'action at a distance' (AAD) and faster than light (c

Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 19:12 GMT

I don't think Einstein really understood the characteristics of electromagnetic (EM) fields and the medium in which they are permitted to propagate. The paper (Classical electrodynamics) by J.H.Field, cited in my previous post, attempts to provide a better explanation by invoking the term "virtual photon". Whether a one-legged virtual photon or a regular two-legged EM photon, the field possessed by the photon doesn't just go away after the photon has passed by on its journey, it diminishes at 1/r2. Even after the photon actors have left the stage, just like a heavily perfumed person passing by, something about them remains where they have been and keeps spreading long after they passed by a particular viewing position.

In a previous post (Jul. 22, 2012), I stated I could not find a mention of permittivity-permeability (P-P) in Einstein's relativity theories. If Einstein had included these characteristics in his theories, he would have had to add some locality conditionals to justify the relativity concepts he published.

It is the P-P of the material in which an EM field is allowed to propagate that determines the velocity of propagation. It is the way we attempt to explain the velocity difference as light passes through two materials with different P-P that creates a problem. Light does not decelerate when it transitions from a vacuum and enters glass, nor accelerates after leaving, it changes velocity and the velocity change is probably instantaneous at the transition interface. Let the mathematicians argue about whether it is possible to mathematically present an instantaneous change in velocity.

I do not support the contention that there is "instantaneous" action at a distance regardless of distance. It just appears so within the confines of our solar system distances, a characteristic that is needed to allow the development of complex biological forms.

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 06:02 GMT

“I don't think Einstein really understood the characteristics of electromagnetic (EM) fields and the medium in which they are permitted to propagate”

As far as I understand it we still don’t. Also as an outsider, I get this impression of most people addressing what was said then as if it had just been said yesterday. When Lorentz postulated dimension change there were no cars, planes. Then we had two dreadful wars and a depression in between. Then the likes of me and Peter were born. In other words, although it appears ‘not long ago’, it was a completely different world.

Also, in my reading of these papers, as an outsider, which has value because I just read what is there, they were really talking about the electrodynamics of movement. Light just got ‘muddled’ up in this, one reason being that an expectation about the speed of light was what prompted the whole train of thought. Another one being because light speed was substituted for distance, incorrectly, in a (non) equation of time (ie it involved the concept of ‘then’ back, so a constant was attributed with variance. Instead of being A-B or B-A which is the same, the two became different).

On the subject of action. By definition, only that which existed at the previous point in time can potentially have any influence, and even then, by definition, that which can, will be limited to that which was adjacent to. In simple language, something cannot be directly affected by something unless it is next to it, and something cannot be affected by something which did not exist immediately previously. Now, that all might sound a dreadfully simplified summation of a very complex circumstance. But this is the power of considering things generically. Forget all the content-‘wood for the trees’ stuff. You alight on the essence of the problem here with the word “appears”. Fundamentally, we are sensing a movie, but in explaining it, we are not decomposing to the single frame level. Which is differentiatable by reference to the fastest rate of change which occurs in reality (ie a clock based on this unit of timing would ‘reveal’ all).


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 11:18 GMT

Yes, and AE would have grasped at the 'locality conditionals' as 'Local Reality' was precisely what he was after in the end. Not just P&P but 2.72 degrees etc.

In terms of the 'photons field' I see that more as the photon itself spreading it's energy out into a wave pattern as it 'dissipates' as an 'entity'. The wave energy is then of many photons, and on the next charging interaction (over some 10^-9 secs) another 'entity' is emitted (Raman scattering).

The really tricky thing to grasp from my paper is the second 'velocity change' between media. Our minds are poorly developed to rationalise it and it needs rehearsal as it is hiding right before our eyes and impossible to 'see.'; I agree entirely with the 'velocity change' quantified by (not 'due to') the refractive index n of the medium. ('due to' is fooling ourselves). But what then if the medium is in co-motion with the other? We can rationalise a block of glass in a vacuum on Earth, but what about one doing 0.2c through space?.

This is the entirely independent kinetic change at the refractive plane. It is the frame transformation. n is a constant in glass whether doing 0.2c through space or at rest in the lab. Ergo; The 'velocity change' is due to relative n PLUS relative v. I identify the quantum process and effects which are massively important and resolve about every fundamental problem in physics.

But virtually invisible to human brains it seems? I'm sure you glimpsed it and it evaporated. That's it's party trick! Can you see it right now?


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 12:01 GMT

Light 'muddled up' with SR is certainly a view, but consider that light had long been established as just a short band of the em spectrum, so was always central to the 1905 paper. The solution he went for was quite inspired, unfortunately simply wrong. A simpler one existed, not spotted.

This is still difficult to 'spot' and absorb today, based on the process I describe in my essay and in the post to Frank above. Can you spot it? I'm afraid you've so far failed to get close!

The irony is that the solution is covering the lenses of our eyes, and indeed all our detectors.; Light changes to local c on arrival AT that layer.!!!

That is SO self apparent and consistent with the evidence we really can't spot that we haven't spotted it in our theory! It is the 'kinetic' speed change. And when we do so it pretends not to exist and disappears again.

Don't loose that as it's slippery as an eel, so come back to it, but as far as SR goes he saw he had had 2 options.

1. An absolute Ether background frame.

2. No Ether or Ether frame at all.

In fact there was a third option, undiscovered until now, that resolves all the issues;

3. Local 'ether' or matter frames (non-absolute).

Where a frame is simply a 'state of motion'. How are you doing with those deeper levels of understanding? You WILL need to read it at least 3 times and think hard to form a new 'hook' for it in your mind.


Paul Reed replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 17:33 GMT

re the cryptic word "muddled" have a look at my post my blog 11/7 19.33. Rather than me reating it here. I will refrain from responding to what you said here for now, because it's tea time. By the way, our little dog (Ralph) was used in a photo shooy today for an ITV programme.


Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 18:08 GMT

"In other words, although it appears 'not long ago', it was a completely different world."

I do not know how old you and Peter are, but I received a General Class Radio Amateur license in 1948, when I was in high school, thus I have been aware of the electromagnetic (EM) world for some time. The environment in which EM waves propagate has not changed one wit since Hertz demonstrated their propagation, and cars, planes, wars and economic depressions have absolutely no influence on it. Peter stated the problem correctly by the quote in his essay:

"The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them." Sir Wm. Bragg.

More on that in my response to Peter.


Your quote, "In terms of the 'photons field' I see that more as the photon itself spreading it's energy out into a wave pattern as it 'dissipates' as an 'entity'. The wave energy is then of many photons, and on the next charging interaction (over some 10^-9 secs) another 'entity' is emitted (Raman scattering)."

The first sentence is somewhat like the concept presented by J.H.Field with the virtual photon, it has an influence beyond its EM dimension, its wavelength. The second sentence implies that a photon can change its basic characteristics, and this is true when you consider what happens to photons (EM waves) when they propagate as solitons. Einstein was in one of several generations that ignored the concepts identified by the Korteweg-de Vries equation (KdV equation for short) as applied to EM propagation. Some of the unusual effects observed from large object gravity shielding can be explained if gravity is an EM wave that propagates as a soliton. Interacting solitons can result in an abrupt change of direction of the field vectors, something that does not happen with the interaction between two conventional transverse EM waves.

In the 1990s, research on EM solitons revealed they could be exploited for long distance communications, and the results have been spectacular. This is why I constantly remind individuals of the existence of permittivity and permeability, as these characteristics have to exist for an EM wave to propagate, and as a soliton. It is necessary for one of the EM fields to have a longitudinal component for it to propagate as a soliton.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 26, 2012 @ 12:26 GMT

Interesting. I wasn't familiar with KdV but find consistency with the soliton approach. I have assumed gravity in a topological / energy density way which is consistent with a standing soliton wave. Finding a natural step from here to the translating soliton (in a medium) is a bit beyond me at present.

I consider that the gravitational infinity of a singularity is complete nonsense as the soliton would produce the standing the toroid model of an AGN and magnetosphere, and have a Lagrangian point at it's centre of mass.

We do of course find such points at all centres of mass, (zero potential) so why do we assume singularities?

The Gaia probe, which should verify my stellar aberration model, is planned (ESA 2013) to sit in one of the (5) Lagrangian points in the Earth-moon-sun system orbiting the sun.

My intuition is now that P&P may be largely a matter medium quality, i.e. that the diffuse free electron (etc) plasma permeating space can modulate em waves but the 'dark energy background' can only propagate it at local c. When two dark energy 'space-time geometries' (clouds of ether if you wish) interact they produce tiny handed (twin? - i.e. toroid?) vortexes we call electrons etc. These then implement the modification to propagation speed to maintain c locally. A VERY important function!

Can you rationalise the implications of that in terms of the SR postulates from the Quantum mechanism?

These ions would also have their own quanta of gravitational mass, but implement 'curved space time', (or let's say 'precisely replicate' it) by coupling interactions. Each if them is then surrounded by a toroidal 'soliton' (topograhical again) which it carries with it until meeting an opposite handed vortex set, when they blend back into the 'ether'. ('are annihilated').

Do any of those ramblings make sense to you? The problem seems to that even the basic kinetic foundation of the model seems incomprehensible to many. Not just because most seem to think they know how things work already so don't try, but because our minds have not evolved to visualise the effects of multiple sequences of relative motion from different frames.


Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 23:48 GMT

Lagrangian points are a physics fact. Fortunately, Lagrange identified them before Einstein created the concept of curved space-time, a "physics fiction" that has put a strangle-hold on many aspects of scientific inquiry now for almost a century. Einstein developed his theories with "incomplete information", because he, his generation, and all those preceding, did not recognize that the system we live in provides mechanisms for the efficient transfer of energy, and the soliton is one manifestation of the mechanism.

The Newtonian instantaneous action at a distance (NIAAAD) within solar system dimensions and somewhat beyond, everywhere in the universe, is revealing another characteristic of the energy transfer mechanism. NIAAAD provides a specific delay in the dispersion of mass objects rotating about a sun, allowing specialized forms of energy to develop, which we quaintly refer to as biological life.

I have no idea what a "dark energy background" is. I'll stick to P&P, as we have observed EM velocity changes when the wave enters and exits materials with different values of P&P.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 20:06 GMT

I've never considered NIAAAD as you describe it, and certainly not as providing a dispersion delay allowing us to exist!

Do you not agree that a topological 'gradient', pre-set before a distant body arrives, finds and negotiates it, is mistaken for action at a distance? (as in a Gaussian 'pressure distribution'). In astronomical terms there is even "no consistent relativistic theoretical basis for the ecliptic plane" (i.e. IAU 2000 and USNO Circular 179; p6.) let alone stellar aberration (the 'constant' dropped in 2000 as 'falling raindrops' just don't accurately predict the effect).


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 18:30 GMT
Hi Peter,

Whew! I have to reiterate the comment from my own essay site about my being not so ambitious. :-)

I like the "world's a stage" metaphor. Your stage seems to be filled with strange characters from an Ionesco play, or maybe those in a Fellini movie doing all sorts of unrelated crazy things at once. And just maybe that's the way the universe really works, though I'm betting that there's a "center" to that action to which all the characters have to return.

We also seem to agree that this center is everywhere though hidden, with a critical difference:

When you speak of light speed determined by absorption and emission, you imply an observer-created reality. I say this, because the mechanics can't be symmetrical, and say something novel, as -- if I understand you correctly -- is your claim. You say light rays (or photons?) change speed (negatively accelerate) on detection and accelerate on emission by the same detector, which violates the second law of thermodynamics unless the negative acceleration on detection is equal to the positive acceleration on emission. So even if that's what "really" happens, the measured physics can't differentiate the phenonemon from a constant speed of light -- it's just as useful to say that light doesn't accelerate, that it's "born" a constant. That was Einstein's problem with the ether. It may exist -- we just don't need it to explain experimental results.

Thanks for an enjoyable read. Best wishes in the competition.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:52 GMT

I'd missed your post. Excellent question, but simple solution; The asymmetry is purely a Doppler shift of the 'distance' between emission/waves/photons. The total energy is thus conserved; i.e. If the new medium is in rapid motion towards the source, yes the re-emission at c uses less energy per emission, but the emissions (wave peaks) are closer together. This explains why blue light...

view entire post

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 23:23 GMT
Hi Peter,

I like your paper. It has a composition of poetic style while also expressing some very important ideas. You are very right when you say that "both ontology and experimentation are required". The physics community needs to be reminded of that, often. I also agree with you when you say that there really is a medium.

I did find a minor typo, "Entering the new medium frame K' of of index n' (moving at v with respect to the incident mediums frame K), light changes speed by Dn + Dv." Of course, two "of" doesn't change the meaning.

Overall great paper. I think you'll do well in the contest. Good luck.

By the way, do you think this ontological medium has any relationship to quantum mechanics? Would you care to describe it?

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 01:12 GMT
Hi Peter,

That was me. I thought I was logged in; oops.

Jason Wolfe

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 11:54 GMT

The process derives Relativity direct from known Quantum Mechanisms, but how much 'relationship' to original QM is a good question. In uniting SR and QM both are slightly re-interpreted. Relativity is given a 3rd fundamental option, not requiring either an 'absolute frame' or 'empty' space, and QM is rendered deterministically consistent with Local Reality and Joy Christians findings.

Uncertainty is, as Heisenberg suspected,simply about diffraction and more complexity that we can currently resolve. Navier-Stokes hydrodynamics reflect it well.

The rotation of optical axis from 'asymmetry of charge' due to lateral motion is entirely new and precisely derives 'curved space time' in line with Minkowski's 1908 conception, just interpreted slightly differently by reviewing later assumptions. It only takes non-point particles and dynamic logic to find the massive solution. Maths cannot do so yet as it assumes point particles - another major incorrect assumption hiding the truth!

I'm disappointed few seem to grasp the importance or understand. Kinetic thinking is unfamiliar to most. But I'm impressed that you've at least partly succeeded. Thank you.


PS. Thanks for spotting the typo, there was also another, but Brendan couldn't replace it (suggesting most have typo's).

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear Peter, "The Consciousness Connection" is accepted and on line, I hope you will find some time to read and comment it. Thanks Wilhelmus

Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 18:46 GMT
Peter I agree with your statements that spacetime is nowhere empty - there is no real vacuum anywhere in the universe. Hence there are indeed preferred local rest frames everywhere. This is tied in to the point that universe on large scales is better described by general relativity than special relativity. Any cosmologically realistic general relativity solutions has preferred rest frames. But this does also mean that special relativity calculations are not sufficient to analyse all this in depth - one needs to extend to general relativity (which I tried to explain using only ordinary calculus in my book Flat and Curved Spacetimes, written with Ruth Williams).

George Ellis

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 08:37 GMT

I'm pleased you agree, most seem not to, or not to see the issue. The frames are equivalent to the CMBR 'Frames Last Scattered'.

But rather than simply reverting to the maths of general relativity and leaving SR unresolved what I have done is suggested a full physical ontology compatible with QM to bring the effects of both SR and GR within one real process.

Any views on that process, or any perceived inconsistencies, would be very welcomed.

Many thanks


Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 21:32 GMT
Hi Peter

Just to let you know that I enjoyed reading your interesting essay and I found it in agreement with view. I realized that in general you also hold that there is some matter in the intergalactic space and that there is a preferred system of reference. The speed of light above all must be defined by a medium and not by "empty space" as currently proposed.

Congratulations for your work and good luck in the contest


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 11:27 GMT

Thanks, essays can be fun as well as incisive, and findings predictive. At least that's what I set out to show. Perhaps I used too many layers and concepts, the really important bits take some thought to prise out, but evidence requires wide consistency.

I think the key is at the end, where stellar aberration is derived with a real quantum mechanism, consistent logic and without the use of photons. I think the importance of that is so far missed, but perhaps it needs another astronomer to see it, and one not hidebound by past assumptions.

Do review that (last fig) and comment if you can, but I'm very glad you enjoyed it and agreed anyway. Many thanks.

Best wishes


J. C. N. Smith wrote on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for an interesting and enjoyable essay! Apologies for being tardy in making my way over here. We're all dealing with the usual FQXi embarrassment of riches in terms of new essays to read and think about. I enjoyed your theatrical and poetic flair! You'll certainly not be open to criticism for lack of ambition here! You've provided much to ponder.

Reading your essay recalled to my mind a 2003 paper by Joao Magueijo, 'New varying speed of light theories' ( ), which you might find interesting and at least tangentially related, if you've not already seen it. My own thinking, fwiw, leads me to conjecture that speed should be thought of as a dimensionless quantity. Regardless, it certainly does appear that the idea of space as "empty" is passe. Eddington has referred to space as "a mere negation," which is an interesting way to think of it.

Best of luck in the competition!



Author Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 16:12 GMT

I appreciate your comments. Magueijo went off on a different track. I've read his book but can't recall reading that paper, which sounds broader, so will do so.

I suspect I was a little over ambitious as the volume and quality of essays means we often have to skim or speed read, which means it's hard to follow constructions of complex concepts and effects of application. I appreciate that you did so, obviously an experienced reader.

Best of luck to you to. I hope you don't forget to score mine, as I won't yours.

Many thanks


Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 20:29 GMT

I just read your comments on Topic 1400. When Boscovich made the statement, "Again Boscovich first found no two entities can occupy the same space.", he had incomplete information, he was unaware of the existence of electromagnetic fields. These fields can occupy the same space and do not alter each other. Solitons are a different issue.


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 20:59 GMT

I agree, but I read the Boscovich derivation very differently. He was talking of 'atoms' or particles of non zero spatial dimensions, not relevant to 'fields' etc. And simply but I think brilliantly pointing out that they are NOT 'points' which means they are mutually exclusive spatially. Descrtes kind of agreed, as did Pauli in concept.

I find this is seminal for physics. Cartesian co-ordinate systems cannot 'overlap' as we assume. Frames are 'states of motion' not 'interlocking frame'-like. The structure of logical constructs then models them perfectly.

I may have shocked you with a soliton having 'spin'. I have good reason to suggest this, but it is a different conception and conversation which is consistent.

Do you know much of plasmons?, or Navier-Stokes magnetohydrodynamic turblence? A very important truth lurks there concerning frame changes. (a logical physical model for LT's).


Frank Makinson replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 05:28 GMT

I have no knowledge of plasmons or hydrodynamic processes, but they are definitely phenomena that can transfer electromagnetic energy.

You use the term "spin" in relation to a soliton and I am not sure exactly what it means.

Photonic folks refer to helical waveforms as light with "orbital angular momentum" (OAM), but it is a misnomer. The photonic references I cite in my Helical EM Gravity paper are displaying a wavefront that propagates with the same characteristics as a regular EM wave with circular polarization. The wavefront gives the appearance of spin when it passes by a fixed point because the phase positions of the EM fields are generated with different angular positions at the source. The phase positions are fixed by the orientation of the generating process.

EEs never refer to a circular polarized wave as having OAM.

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 15:05 GMT

Mixing between particle kinetic states or streams is the core of physical Inertial Frame Transitions in the DFM. The Navier-Stokes (unsolvable) magnetohydrodynamic equations apply to all shock turbulence. But the real revalation is applying this mechanism to the 'Transition Zone' between Maxwells near and far field terms for emitters (and receivers, and indeed all refractive planes). [Where the 'poorly understood' non-linear optics effects appear and Snel's Law fails].

Light is scattered at c locally by each electron. Ergo, the shock 'kinetic state mixing zone' is a 'boundary' between frames that enacts the transformation c' = c, (c locally each side). It does so via the quantum mechanism of coupling (absorption) and scattering, to produce all the effects we see, including implementing the postulates of SR. i.e. Unification of physics. This simple solution may indeed be so much of a shock it can't even be recognised!

The falsification is in the way this 'Discrete Field' mechanism resolves every paradox and anomaly in the book. I'll check out the photonic references in your paper, but plasmons may be a bit peripheral to that, though the surface magneto optic and (electro optic) Kerr effects (SMOKE) are at last explained, as is ellipticity.

Let me know if you can assimilate the mechanisms kinetics and implications.

I agree OAM is poorly understood. Is there anything that's not!? Perhaps think of a wavefront quantized and a plasmon as an 'overall shape' which may contain internal oscillations at a smaller scale.


John A. Macken wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 00:17 GMT

The following is a repeat of the post I placed in response to your comment on my essay. The post is actually equally appropriate for your essay site, so here it is again.

I have read your essay and I believe that the description of spacetime I develop in my book will help you quantify some of your ideas. For example, I show that spacetime is an elastic medium with impedance of Zs = c3/G. This is obtained both from gravitational wave equations and from vacuum zero point energy density. The quantum mechanical model of spacetime that I develop has energy density of 10113 J/m3. This energy density is equal to the famous 10120 ratio of vacuum energy density obtained from QED to the observed energy density of the universe obtained from cosmology and GR (10-9 J/m3).

This large QED energy density is usually assumed to be impossible, but I show how it is not only possible but also essential for the existence of all particles, fields and forces. The point of interest to you is that I go on to characterize an electric field as a distortion of spacetime (a new constant of nature is suggested). When this constant is applied to electromagnetic radiation it is shown that the impedance of free space Zo is equal to the impedance of spacetime obtained from gravitational waves. What this implies is that photons are a quantized wave disturbance that propagates in the medium of spacetime. This short post cannot address all questions but ultimately this relates to the perception that the speed of light is constant. The details are available here.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 15:17 GMT

An analogy; A jet of water is fired into a hot tub. Within the water at rest in the frame of the jet light does c/n (140,000miles/sec.) in the jet frame.

Light in the bit of water at rest in the hot tub frame is doing c/n with respect to the tub (140,000miles/sec).

Now the physical explanation of the LT. The light reaching the particles of the water in the jet is absorbed, then re-emitted at c by each particle, as at a lens.

Ergo; c' = c via a Quantum Mechanism, = Unification.

In a near vacuum the process takes a little more time and space. There's plenty out there.

The problem with this solution is that our assumptions get in the way, making it unfamiliar, so it remains the elephant in the room, too big to recognise as the elephant we're searching for. Can you make out it's shape?

Can anybody?


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 05:04 GMT

Thank you for your appreciation of my essay. Many people believe that the infinite nesting of matter is more preferable than the limited number of levels of matter. In philosophy, the same many prefer motion as a more general concept than rest. But in reality, motion and rest, infinity and limitations are opposites and can not exist without each other. Of the rest there is movement, if you look at the situation from a moving frame of reference. The same is in the structure of matter – even if the universe appears limited, outside you can expect a lot of similar universes.

I find in your essay the questions about real diffuse particle 'medium' in Universe, and how is the constant speed of light (CSL) logically explained. About the constancy of speed of light, see the article Extended special theory of relativity , where the question be raised.

Sergey Fedosin

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 11:08 GMT

I was astonished you found 'CSL logically explained' by the Quantum Mechanisms in my essay, but very pleased. Unfortunately the logical kinetic relationships seem too complex for most to penetrate and assimilate in application. The speed we have to read at to keep up with all the essays is a problem when concepts are multi faceted and unfamiliar.

But I've just found and looked over your MTR (your direct link didn't work) and it seems you had an unfair advantage; you'd found similar conclusions already, though analysed from a more complete mathematical, if less physical, basis.

I had also just to 'speed read' for now, but initially assess your theory as excellently derived, proved and presented and far more complete in many areas than the DFM. I have not yet penetrated it's inner depths, but I hope and think I have additional and complimentary aspects, so some merging is possible to the greater benefit. You may wish to explore other areas of the DFM, i.e. the emergent astronomical aspects discussed in Robert Oldershaw and Hope he's blogs etc. I'd be honoured if you did and will pass you some links.

I'm impressed you've established a place on wikiversity. How serious has your theory been taken by mainstream so far?

Best wishes


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 13:17 GMT

Ken Wharton has not responded yet to any post.Maybe a manifestation of the arrogance of a professional before layman?

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 17:48 GMT

Perhaps, or maybe we can be charitable and assume he is busy or on holiday.

Have you analysed the important kinetic effects emergent from the mechanism in my essay yet? It seems I may have made it too difficult to do so. Do you think so?


Yuri Danoyan replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 12:27 GMT
I gave you maximum today

Please don't forget impartially evaluate my essay

Irvon Eugene Clear wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 13:50 GMT
Peter, I am working on an Intuitive Explanation for the Existence of Everything. It begins with one initial state of being...perfection. It anything existed in the beginning it was perfect. The only other possibility was nothingness. Then perfection created all possible objects, forces, and relationships that are not perfect. A point in nothingness was spherically expanded into a universe of possibility. This was the creation of space. Perhaps a simpler way of expressing it is to describe the universe as filled with imperfect objects, forces and relationships that actually exist. What we conceptualize as empty space is actually the existing potential for all objects, forces and relationships that could exist but do not exist.

If we are only looking for things that exist at the moment of observation we will see a universe that is filled with potential and very sparsely populated with evolved things. I value nothingness as a valuable gift. It is actually the potential to do the impossible. Everything that was impossible in the past and is now real in the present and future comes from the "empty space" in our universe. The dimension of space measures all of the possibilities that are within it. It accommodates what could happen which is a much greater magnitude of possibility than what has actually happened.

I appreciate your work and find it challenging. For me it supports the idea that when we observe with more accuracy we have to accept the possibility that some portion of previously empty space can become real.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 16:21 GMT

"Impossible means only it hasn't been done YET". Not only my favourite axiom but the way I live my life and view science. I can find an analog of your intuitive explanation. It is a real mechanism, as I'm a very 'locally real' guy.

It comes from recycling and re-ionization (an astrophysical anomaly not previously explained) by AGN's (SMBH's). Re-ionization breaks the matter of a galaxy (and other scales) down to it's purest form. More completely fresh matter condenses from the dark energy field by perturbation. That then makes the unique (less 'perfect' collections of evolving mass. The whole universe is then 'potential'.

My work explains how that non zero spatial matter evolves over non zero time on interactions. Present physics does not. It is indeed challenging to those only used to math to visualise the evolving effects of motion.Ken Wharton rationalises why correct maths can't do this. I hope my essay may make the top 35 to be studied more closely and judged and hope you think it worth helping.

Best wishes


Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 23:48 GMT
Dear Peter,

Your paper is very interesting and is agreed with my paper. Please read my new paper which is related to your essay,

I think you indicating in your paper and agree with me the Lorentz factor is equivalent to refractive index. What I did I modified SRT in order to accept that. According to my theory the Lorentz factor can be determined by the difference of the vacuum energy, which is depending on the the difference of temperature, pressure and effective density. Thermodynamic laws are applied here. Hawking law of black holes proofs my idea, where Hawking connected the GRT with thermodynamic and quantum, and according to my theory I connect the SRT with quantum and thermodynamic by MSRT. Logically if GRT which is derived from SRT is connected with thermodynamic and quantum, also SRT must be. Please read also my comment on relative to the Hawking law of black hole.


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 17:10 GMT

There is much we agree on, but I read your paper and find it departs from or does not refer to the logical space-time structure mine uses, rather reverts to maths without establishing the mechanism.

I may have misunderstood parts, perhaps due to your imperfect use of a foreign language in explanations such as; "the time required for the light beam to pass the length of the moving train for the earth observer is independent of the direction of the velocity of the train compared to the direction of transmitting the light beam (Robertson [33]). Thus, if the light beam is sent inside the moving train from the end to the front –at the direction of the velocity- in this case for the earth observer according to his clock the required time

separation for the light beam to pass the length of the moving train is ∆t..."

I find refraction and c/n of all light at the train windows and medium, and thus invariant t to the 'Earth observer', but APPARENT (not real local) c+v. This is explained conceptually, ontologically and mechanistically, i.e. with no mechanical abstraction, and rigorously using the rules of logic. It meets observation, but I can't seem to renormalise (map) some of your results back to reality to do so.

Perhaps you can say if you get the same result as me for the classic 'lightning flashes at each end of the train. I find the observers on the train and embankment see them simultaneously, (at 1st order) but are not opposite each other when they do so. (by D= train v during propagation time t).

Although many other areas seem common to us, I also find up to apparent 10c for pulses in quasar jets (M87) from Earth but with no violation of local c due to collimation. This does seem contrary to your own explanation, or am I mistaken? Do you have any real mechanistic analogues for your maths?


Azzam AlMosallami replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 00:34 GMT
Dear Peter,

My postulate relative to the speed of light is taken from H. P. Robertson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 378 (1949). This postulate was proposed by Robertson in order to interpret the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. And by using the concepts of quantum theory in the boundary conditions I found there is an analogy between when a particle or the light is passing through...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 14:53 GMT

The train paradox evaporates when optics is used from the text books. There may be an analogy with your vacuum energy, because Doppler shift is also an energy shift. Perhaps you could see how close your mathematical solution comes to describing this underlying physical explanation, which has 100% logic and experimental proof.

In the rest frame of the train, light from the flashes front and rear enters the glass screens, does c/n (n=1.55) in the glass, re enters the air and does c/n in air (n=1.0003) or c in the vacuum (n=1) so in a short time both reach the observer sitting at the centre of the train simultaneously. All childs play OK?

The light from the flashes also heads towards the observer at rest half way between them on the embankment. It does c/n wrt the air (or c in vacuum), so a short time later also arrive at the observer simultaneously. Equally childs play Yes?

But do both observers see the flashes simultaneously. Of course they do. But during propagation the observer in the train has moved with the train slightly, so is of course no longer precisely opposite the other observer. No problem.

So do they see each other light up simultaneously? Yes, slightly after they themselves are lit up due again to the propagation time from one to the other.

So where than is the paradox? Why do we need length contraction and time dilation??? The contraction and dilation of energy (wavelength) is the Doppler shift of the signals in the train implemented at the windscreens, because they re-emit light at c wrt themselves. So the light from ahead is seen by the train observer blue shifted, and the light from behind red shifted, affecting energy, but of the light itself, not somehow of 'the vacuum'.

Can you find any error of simple logic and the laws of optics in that solution? Agreed, both SR and QM are better interpreted, and consistent.


Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 04:32 GMT

Your essay shows an artistic creativity that really sets it apart. And the title is so wonderfully ironic. There are so very many points stated that it becomes difficult to see how they are all related. But 2 points seem to correspond to the central points of my essay:

1. Your discussion of the inability to detect or access or discern the true velocity of energy transport in a pure vacuum (Poincare's unobservable and Minkowski's "imaginary" velocities). That really parallels my point that measurements require a charge to be present and so require analysis using the Maxwell equations with sources to model the situation where measurements are made.

2. You also identify Ewald and Oseen's extinction theory as being operative in energy transport. That is very much in harmony with the rigorous determination of the effects of dispersion in my paper. Though Ewald and Oseen's theory is worked out for charges in molecules having regular geometric spacing, it is related to the more general Lorentz-Lorenz formula for dispersion. Born and Wolf's "Principles of Optics" is the standard text explaining how the works.

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 15:28 GMT

Yes, I defined key jigsaw pieces then ran out of space to elaborate on precise relationships to make the consistent picture.

1. The importance on observation only by interaction is that the interacting mass must be non zero spatially (NOT a 'point') so it's kinetic state (frame) must be mutually exclusive, even if within and 'around' infinitely many others at all scales. This model then proves to be a 'magic wand' resolving anomalies en masse. The quantum mechanism of re-emitting (scattering) at c derives local CSL, so SR from QM!

2. Extinction represents this process in a diffuse medium. Each interaction changes (extinguishes) all varying 'relative arrival' speeds to the local c. This explains birefringence, and allows curved space-time as a refractive effect, again resolving all the many anomalies of Astronomy! Astronomy won't publish the papers as it appears to contradict SR (yet it derives the postulates). 'Ewald-Oseen' is just used generically.

3. Stellar Aberration is one of the most important solutions that emerge, predicting the aberration pattern precisely, which NO theory or algorithm can otherwise do without empirical refraction added in. It even explains the reasons behind the fluctuations causing the IAU to abandon the 'constant' in 2000.

The essay is just the tip of the iceberg. The model's predictive power seems to evaporate all the issues with whatever I point it at!

Did you check my end notes formula? The model needs better formulation that I'm capable of. I hope if you can see the bigger picture that emerges you may be able to help.


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 10:26 GMT
Eckard hopes others will join this discussion on his blog, I do too, and also re-post this part to mine (first part 19th Aug in Eckards).


EB; "I do not understand why and how Snell's law is recovered. What is an incident medium? Isn't rather a wave possibly incident? Which KRrefraction experiments and which KRrefraction effect do you refer to? Do you really maintain that...

view entire post

Jeff Baugher wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 20:08 GMT

Excellent essay. We are both trying to prove the same point. My essay is very basic but I am attempting to point out something about the Einstein field equation. I have recently added a sketch to help explain it (you can find the essay here. ) and would appreciate any comments you have to make on how to more clearly bring my point across.



Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 09:41 GMT

Thanks. We give very different proofs of very similar things. I'll comment on your blog, but I turned from maths to ontological construction testing for the reason you give. Ken Wharton also exposes our foolhardy reliance on maths.

You might test this model; The axial anisotropic CMB flow is a scaled up version of a quasar jet. The CMB anisotropy itself has been resolved by computer into a helix, which precisely matches the quasar model, as the outflow jets from AGN's.

I have shown that AGN's are part of a galactic recycling process, re-ionizing all the dead stars and planetary matter to re-start the process with an open spiral on a perpendicuar axis. The common 'Kinetic decoupling' (perpedicular halo rotation) is thereby also finally explained along with other effects. Take a look at Centurus A (NASA HST) for a scale model of the universe.

Expansion is thus not accelerating but mainly reducing, except from the other end of the axis to the 'great attractor' (nonsense of course) in the direction of Leo. I've determined galaxies recycle every ~10-12Gyrs (a massive quasar peak is at z=1.7) so our 2nd iteration of the Milky Way is in middle age. A better analysis of the CMB anisotropy might constrain the same factor for our universe. (There may then be infinitely many numerically as well as temporally). If you're interested I'll link you to a past paper (new one in review).

Last technical point; I've found algerbaic vector apace cannot model motion as it's based on geometry where motion is an invalid concept, but I do know that to get a 'plus' sign hit; ampersand hash 43 semicolon. Like this; +


Jeff Baugher replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:33 GMT

I would be very much interested (and perhaps others) on the papers you referenced.

Thanks (and for the advice on the +, drove me crazy!)


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 15:09 GMT

Good, links below. Rob McEachern's brilliant analysis is also consistent with the basis of my analysis method, but I think you've read it.

You'll have to allow for the fact that the ontological construction termed the 'Discrete Field' model has continued to come on by leaps and bounds over the last year. The resolutions of anomalies are like a flood from a breached dyke. This means the papers are far from up to date. (The latest ones are currently either in review or accepted but not yet published).

The first short read may be last years essay.

Then the helical CMBR asymmetry one posted on vixra.

A 2010 one on aberration was

There are more but all older still.

Do point out any obvious updates needed!



Robert H McEachern wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 20:42 GMT

So far, I have only skimmed over your paper, but I would like to make a few initial comments.

In your essay, you ask: "How is the constant speed of light (CSL) logically explained?" You also stated "Assumption 2. Frequency is real..."

For Einstein these two points were closely linked, and represented a rather intractable problem. His solution to the problem was, in...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 11:06 GMT

Binary star evidence confirmed flight time irrespective of emitter vector, (etc.) so there was also empirical logic to fixing c, even if he couldn't build it into a consistent ontology. Yes I agree with your analysis, but a deeper read should hopefully expose natures underlying ontological construction.

A good new viewpoint may be this one; Consider Earth and our...

view entire post

Robert H McEachern replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 21:31 GMT

I am aware of the binary star evidence and the much older moons of Jupiter evidence. But there remains the problem of the difference between phase velocity and group velocity.

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 10:10 GMT

I agree waves are still poorly understood. I've written the odd paper from optics and more original viewpoints. I eventually resolved to the term 'signal velocity' for the purposes of c, more equivalent to group velocity. I have no clue how this may relate to information theory. Does it?

An aspect poorly considered in representations is that, considering a soliton as a 'wave...

view entire post

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 04:06 GMT

I remembered your post

" My last years essay was a top 10 finalist but not a winner (a crime perhaps?). Fair? and expert? I don't now, but the Solution, of course."

I often watching community rating and wondering when i see lady among leaders

Her submission was Sep. 6, 2012

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 17:07 GMT

Decrypting natures fundamental secrets was tricky, but somehow seems a little easier than decrypting you messages!

I've seen a few good ladies essays doing well. Has this one admitted her sex?

I'd hoped you may have read and gleaned some of the findings worth discussing from my essay. (This is after all the intent of the blogs here, yes?)

But I know there is much to read and digest.


Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 01:54 GMT

Accepting the reality of space as a medium not big discovery

Major question to guess all picture one cycle

I see the Universe only this way

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 19:58 GMT

Agreed. What IS big and missed is the implications. If something IS there, like all the pair production ('fluctuations') then it modulates light speed by re-emitting absorbed light at c.

If is simple kinetic logic that then UNIFIES PHYSICS because all such matter can only re-emit at c, so we, a 'detector' can only ever FIND c!!!!!

When applied, this mechanism not only gives 'Local Reality' but also resolves about every one of the many scores of anomalies in physics. Unfortunately is doesn't 'LOOK' the same as the old familiar assumptions, so isn't recognised. It's simply dismissed however successful it is.

'Seemple' as the Meercat said to his human audience. Was he correct?


Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 20:06 GMT
Who is Meercat ?

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 21:34 GMT

A meercat is an animal. They appear to have learnt the English language very precisely and rapidly (I'll try to find their teachers if you wish). They now look out at human beings and say; 'Seemple' (Which is 'simple' with a meercat accent.

I'm not sure if humankind is bright enough to yet understand to irony and veracity of the meercats opinion.


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 21:41 GMT
Now i understand your sarcasm...

Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 06:08 GMT
Hi Peter,

I'm looking now at the Doppler equations in your essay near the end. First of all, I should point out that a couple of posters have asserted that the Lorentz
factor is due to refraction. That's close but not quite true. Refraction requires there to be a differential in the speed of energy propagation between different points, or some type of boundary interface so that different parts of the wave progress at different speeds. The proper description of the origin of the Lorentz
factor is dispersion.

I've not yet seen what I consider a rigorous derivation of the relativistic Doppler effect and haven't had the time to develop one myself yet. So what will follow is only a preliminary analysis. I'll post again shortly as I need to hop off a train on my way to work now.



Anonymous replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 11:19 GMT

What dispersion at c locally achieves in my model is a differential in the speed of energy propagation within different spaces (frames), by implementing a boundary interface mechanism so that different parts of waves progress at different speeds.

The key here is that relative closing, or APPROACH velocity, is v + v, so therefore also c + v, but that at the moment of...

view entire post

Stephen M Sycamore replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT
Fortunately I hopped off the train last, well behind everyone else. However the train had just come to a stop so that the dwindling Eddy currents sparked into a micro wormhole catapulting me several tens of minutes into the future where I could safely step out ahead of everyone else ;^)

I'll have to peek more at your paper...


Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 14:54 GMT
Very good Essay, Peter. I am going to give you an high score.



Anonymous wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:18 GMT

The following "simple answer" of yours is absurd (and accordingly catapulted your essay to the top of the community rating list):

"If light travels at a speed of distance d divided by time t (d/t = km/sec) then how can it be found always at c (~300,000km/sec) by all moving observers? A simple answer would be that light changed speed on arrival. Light would then travel at c= d/t through a background medium, but change to local c when meeting an observer."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:58 GMT
And this is both absurd and mysterious (the combination is highly valued by Einsteinians):

"In SR only one case was assumed for observing 'speed' with constant c. We describe a second case, where c is unaffected but where an 'apparent' speed c+/-v is also allowed."

Pentcho Valev

Stephen M Sycamore replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 06:03 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

We haven't been taught to think about, let alone understand the actual physical processes involved where fluctuating EM fields interact with charged particles in the general sense that Peter's essay explores. So it is no surprise that you might think an exploration of its effects "absurd". I could point out a number of papers here which propose highly extravagant new types of physics (which conflict with rather than compliment known physics). But of course none of that is necessary. It has been shown that the Maxwell equations and the Lorentz force law are perfectly able to say exactly what the physics are.


Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 06:35 GMT

The absurdity is in Peter's claim that the speed of light is variable (c'=c+v) prior to the light meeting the observer but then on arrival miraculously becomes constant c'=c (so that Einsteinians can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity").

DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bo-o-ohr!

We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Sreenath B N. wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Peter,

You have written yet another essay in defence of SR and I appreciate your saga regarding that.BTW,please go through the essay of Benjamin F. Dribus who, like your DFM, wants to use 'quantized reference frames' inorder to describe reality.

Please,go through my essay too and send in your comments to my forum.

( B N.)

Warm regards and good luck in the essay contest.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 15:38 GMT

I come to bury Caesar not to praise him. Not quite true as Einstein was clearly a true genius, getting so close even without knowing space isn't empty! But I show how with just a bit of tidying up to remove the paradoxes SR can be logical, and a similar tweak to QM then fits SR properly.

Gravity (GR) emerges as a combined energy effect, that is, Visible Matter plus 'Dark Matter', plus dark energy, as a simple energy density distribution; where there is more energy focussed into matter there is less dark energy, so (gravitational) pressure asymmetry. But there was no space to elaborate on that. Even the explanation I just gave to Pentcho had to be curtailed in the essay so many missed it.

I look forward to reading yours this year, if it's as good as last year it'll get a good score, and I hoped you liked mine enough to give it the top mark Petcho's vision of the future (above) foresaw.

Very best wishes and good luck.


James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 22:09 GMT
Dear Peter,

While I think you do make some useful observations regarding the importance of plasma in the universe, I am compelled to point out a crucial misrepresentation of the right image in 'Figure 1'. The superimposed image caption states: "Visible 'Dark Matter'. Galaxy Cluster CL 0024+17."

The Figure 1 caption states:

"Space. Different constituents of the Inter-Galactic...

view entire post

Anonymous replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:34 GMT

Dark matter must be denied as well as supported, that's science, and I think you make as good a fist of it as possible. I also agree your comments and that interpretations (as they must) vary. I set out to falsify it myself some years ago and followed exploration as well as the two competing teams and eventual 'task force'. I tended to read some 30 papers a week (the MNRAS alone had 56 in just one of 3 Sept volumes so far). I was initially astonished by the data, much of which, with respect, you ignore or are not aware of, but eventually a clear picture dawned on me, not matching most interpretation, but more consistent with the actual findings, of all sorts. I know I won't change your mind, but must explain anyway.

I now do not agree with your comment that dark matter; "cannot consist of any ordinary detectable matter and does not emit any EM radiation." It can indeed consist of baryonic matter despite assumptions. Plasma considered as 'stem cell' type pairs is not detectable except kinetically and gravitationally. There is a plethora of both gravitational and kinetic evidence. A whole pile of other anomalies are then resolved by such a model, from Interstellar Faraday Rotation, through ellipticity to the Voyager anomaly, lensing and light delays.

We now estimate the rotational velocities of galaxies via the red and blue shift of the dark matter haloes. The related kinetic Sunyaey-Zeldovich effect has been known for decades, and a recently derived kinetic term from Atlas 3D work is referred in my essay. Related light delays can be over 3 years!!!

i.e. The dark matter couples with all em waves, re-emits them at c within the halo as it rotates (so slows it down one side and speeds it up the other) then when it leaves' it's out of phase, but does c across the intervening spce.

Please refractive index n=

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 12:21 GMT

Anon was me, not only a logout but half the post gone! I think I referred to plasma n=

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 14:15 GMT

Thanks very much for your courteous response. While I am a lay person, I have spent >30 years identifying and solving critical operational issues in some of the world's very largest computer systems. I'm quite used to encountering many conflicting interpretation of observational data. As the primary goal of this contest is to "Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking about foundational questions in physics and cosmology", I don't think it would be appropriate to bow to any interpretation of 'dark matter evidence' based solely on the credentials of the interpreter. Nothing personal.

If I understand correctly, the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect has been used to detect galaxy clusters since, unlike dark matter, the vast, hot plasma comprising the intracluster medium physically interacts with the photons of the CMB, producing large scale optical distortions in the microwave background signal. The independence of supposed galaxy cluster dark matter, inferred by identified weak gravitational lensing, and the gaseous intracluster medium has been established by their spatial separation due to galaxy cluster collisions. Interestingly, the weak lensing effects are not separated from the clusters' galaxies by those collisions...

I am not aware of any peer reviewed published reports using the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect to identify galactic dark matter halos. In the interest of rigorous investigation, can you provide some references for visible dark matter?

Sincerely, Jim

Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 05:56 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

It's the beauty of having identified a homomorphism between relativistic 4 vector equations and Newtonian-Galilean 3 vector equations that for most common problems you may choose which framework you wish to work within and the numerical results will be equivalent to what you get in the other framework. That homomorphism is:

Where the left hand side is what could be called the Maxwell-Thomson-de Broglie relations and the right hand side the Poincare-Einstein-Minkowski relations. A similar homomorphism may be written for momentum also.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 10:18 GMT

The Mystery may now be resolved, and the apparent "absurdity". (I post this here as you had multiple points above and I've already responded to the main one there). My 'mysterious' sentence was;

"In SR only one case was assumed for observing 'speed' with constant c. We describe a second case, where c is unaffected but where an 'apparent' speed c+/-v is also allowed."

What this means is; When Einstein considered SR he assumed that anything that even 'appeared' to move faster than c HAD to be denied, i.e. a pulse of light in a Fibre Optic cable, or better still, gas filled waveguide tube, pinned to a passing Concord doing Mach2 could not be seen at c

James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 23:46 GMT

Thanks again for your reply, which was to some extent helpful in identifying the source of confusion. However, I must point out that you've not addressed the specific reference to the image caption referring to "Visible 'Dark Matter'. Galaxy Cluster CL 0024+17." As demonstrated by the NASA & Wikipedia references, this is definitely a misinterpretation.

Your last response...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 11:02 GMT

Our 'dark matter' Halo is 10^12 solar masses, far more than visible baryonic matter. In my caption I put 'dark matter' in inverted commas as I'm clearly saying I'm not proposing the common interpretation. That density is consistent with kinetic effects and CMB data as well as gravity, but I also accept your own proposal as worthy of consideration.

Mine is simply one of the alternative valid views; That we live in a 'dark energy/ matter universe' where visibly baryonic matter in only

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 13:47 GMT

Thanks very much for your consideration. I must say, though that the image caption "Visible 'dark matter'" certainly does not even clearly convey your assertion that it represents (as stated in the Figure 1 caption) "... a diffuse plasma medium of ions, CO and molecular gas." Neither interpretation is correct, as the 'visible' 'clouds' actually illustrates a gravity map inferred by the researchers. No plasma medium has been detected within any inferred galactic dark matter halo - no 'clouds' or anything else is visible there.

Sorry to be so obstinate - I do see value in your emphasis on the importance of plasma media in the universe. I'm just compelled to clarify points of confusion.

Best wishes - you're doing very well in the competition!

Anonymous replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 15:13 GMT

Thanks. The 'map' is overlaid on the image on the left, also showing REAL X ray results. The caption is, correctly, on the visible band HST image. That was precisely my point; That 'dark matter' need NOT be some mysterious unknown substance. The Ostriker quote gives the 'Concordance' view which I vary from. That fact, or that it's a different modification to yours, cannot make it...

view entire post

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 18:25 GMT

"The 'map' is overlaid on the image on the left..."

This is incorrect - the gravity map overlay I've repeated referred to is included only in the image on the right. The process using weak gravitational lensing to generate the gravity map used to produce the artificial dark matter 'cloud' overlay image is clearly and undeniably explained in the NASA announcement: Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter. Both the overlaid and unmodified images are included in that document.

If you will refer to the above NASA document I'll be happy to discuss any issues you might have.

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 12:16 GMT

You're right. If we considered 'visible' as only the optical em range the right hand image is also not strictly 'visible', same as as the left one. However, in astronomy we're almost never dealing with the optical range (which is a tiny part of observation), so 'visible' is shorthand for visible 'at' 'in' or 'by'...' i.e. it's synonymous with 'detectable'. It is a very...

view entire post

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 05:16 GMT

Thinking more about the additional effects contributing to galaxy cluster lensing, as you mentioned, I recalled seeing the Nature News article back in June, Galaxy clusters caught in motion, clearly describing the recent identification of the kSZ effect. That had been my first exposure to either the tSZ of kSZ effect.

Interestingly, I commented back then, speculating that the SZ effects should apply not only to CMB photons but all others as well, likely contributing to weak lensing effects produced by galaxy clusters that are now attributed only to gravitational effects. I further speculated that the result may be the overestimation of the total galaxy cluster mass necessary to produce the identified weak lensing effects. This then would at a minimum result in the overestimation of dark matter present within galaxy clusters.

My assertion is that the hypothesized enormous amounts of galactic dark matter have been misconceived, and that huge galactic DM halos do not actually exist.

That would not necessarily preclude the existence of dark matter to explain observed galaxy cluster lensing, or its inference (however that's accomplished) as the structural backbone of the 'cosmic web'.

I strongly suspect that, at large scales, no enormous dark matter halos envelop galaxies. I'm also beginning to suspect that, at very large scales, much of the effects attributed to dark matter in and among galaxy clusters may be the product of ICM and amorphous plasmas, as I think you suggest.

Best wishes on your work (although I suggest you focus on galaxy clusters & above :-) Jim

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 17:40 GMT

Thanks for you consideration and understanding. However, I object to the use of the term 'visible' in regard to the dark matter illustrated in your Fig. 1 image of galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17. That image has effectively been 'photoshopped' by NASA to illustrate the presence of dark matter that has been inferred through a complex series of analyses including the statistical analysis...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 20:21 GMT

I agree for non astronomer readers the word 'detected' would have been better here. Working in 3 sciences I have to regularly switch 'languages' subconsciously. Discussing an astronomical image with my 'FRAS' hat on, the term 'visible' is appropriate, but I agree, human eyes nor the HST can 'see' it, only it's effects. You'll recall I don't subscribe to long range 'photons' but your...

view entire post

Domenico Oricchio wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 22:21 GMT
I am thinking to the detection idea, or collapse in quantum mechanics, reading your Act 1-Scene 1.

I am thinking on the double slit experiment: the screen is a quantum macroscopic object; so is the photon that make interference, or the multiple screen not-correlated electron (and proton) to make quantum effect? Is it possible to distinguish the two effects?

In general a measure is a collapse of a quantum function using a macroscopic object, this is the reason of my problem.

I think that the Act 1-Scene 2 is very interesting: what happen in a half transparent(index n)-half vacuum tube in movement with velocity v, with two mirror that reflect a photon? What is the law n(v) in the rest system, and in the movement system? What happen for a neutrino in the same system? If there exist an hypothetical transparent observer (like very intelligent jellyfish), then the light velocity is the maximum velocity in the medium (for example glycerol)? The neutrino is more quick!

I must make some calculus, but your article give me some suggestions.

Amusing event: the same post has been write before (for error) in the Matthew Peter Jackson blog!

The netiquette require the erasing of this post.



Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 17:52 GMT

The mirror problem resolves with c in the medium frame both on approach and after reflection, because the 'transition zone' must of course work both ways. It is equivalent to a 'fluid dynamic coupling' of inertial frames. At the boundary there are electrons at rest in BOTH media frames, with turbulence between, but all re-emitting at their own c. This applies to ALL media. Only the extinction distance changes (with 'birefringence' apparent during the change).

I think this has proved too difficult dynamic visualisation of most readers, so introducing theoretical speculative neutrino's would just confuse more. We need to assimilate the concept that there is BOTH real and APPARENT speed, so apparent superluminal speed is allowed with no violation of c.

At the (twin-slit) back screen, there is no co-motion, so the (probably part re-blended) arriving 'photon' or wave energy charges the particles, and as each reaches threshold energy it re-emits, forming the small 'dot' pattern. The intensity of combined interacting waves from the 'slit edge' emissions changes across the screen according to Huygens construction to form the interference pattern. This can simply be shown in simple experiments I've done myself. By moving the back screen position during the experiment. A 3D interference picture can then be built up in the space behind the slits. You may have read this last year;

Does this accord with your thoughts? What it does seem to do is unify all physics and derive curved space time from QM by changing the optical axis of re-emissions ('refraction'). Is that emerging for you, or can you see any shortcomings?

Also the little maths I give has been challenged. Do you have a view on that?

Many thanks, and Best wishes


James Putnam replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 18:46 GMT

I recognize that you are well prepared to defend your view. I have read about it over and over:

"I think this has proved too difficult dynamic visualisation of most readers, so introducing theoretical speculative neutrino's would just confuse more. We need to assimilate the concept that there is BOTH real and APPARENT speed, so apparent superluminal speed is allowed with no violation of c."

I don't think that I have having a problem visualizing it. But there remains something that I have asked in past and feel uncertain about of your answer:

Does relativity's length contraction consist only of remote appearances due to effects which occur upon the photons, doing the reporting, during their travels including their arrivals? In other words, does the original object suffer length contraction as a real local physical effect before the reporting photons begin their travels and undergo their own changes? Is length contraction only a remote visual effect?

Time and talk may have blurred my memory about your position. But, I do find myself reading your messages and today at least am uncertain about your answer. Thank you.


Domenico Oricchio replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 21:55 GMT
I am interested, and I am thinking, on the macroscopic interaction of the macroscopic objects (lens, mirrors, screen, etc.) with quantum object (for example light): each measure in physics is obtained, in general, using macroscopic object.

I think that the quantum effects can be obtained from the noise in the screen (different phases in the screen electron) of the double slit experiment.

I see in your article a study of the interaction of the photons with the macroscopic object to justify the constant speed of the light: I see this like a maximum interference (interaction) between electrons and photons; I don't know if this point is true, but it is very interesting.

I know that different velocity of the light in the different medias is due to the emission-absorption of the photons (between two collision the light velocity is constant) but these interactions don't happen for the neutrinos; so in a media we can have a signal that are more quickly of the light in the media.

I see interesting points in your essay.

I shall read your the arxiv article.



Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 09:18 GMT

Lengths contract by an intuitive Doppler shift process due to the non zero distance between components of matter. It does NOT then apply at all to 'idealised rigid bodies', either real or apparently. Luckily there is no such thing as a completely rigid body, but there are degrees of compressibility.

The non-zero time of interaction during media co-motion is the key. Imagine a...

view entire post

James Putnam replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 13:42 GMT

Ok, I think what I have been missing in my question is that I am not asking about special relativity. I am interested in what happens in the real world. If there is a long straight closed tube with a vacuum inside it, and, that tube is lying stationary on the surface of the Earth, and, an object inside that tube is moving through it at very high speed relative to the tube and Earth, will that object experience length contraction as a real physical effect due to its velocity relative to the tube and Earth? What happens to photons afterwards is not a point of confusion. I picture the object as a thin rod with its length parallel to the tube.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 17:59 GMT

No. It would not contract. Either in reality or apparently.

I think you misunderstood my previous reply. I was also certainly not discussing special relativity but only the real world. The real mechanisms I describe produce all the effects we observe.

Someone once drew up theory to try to try to explain the apparent paradoxes in those observations (i.e. CSL). The real mechanistic solution bears little resemblance to that theory, and shows there were b=never any real paradoxes, just m=limited comprehension.

This is important as it also makes sense of QM, meaning that all classical observed effects are fully explained by (known but better interpreted) quantum mechanisms. Is this is too big for physics to assimilate?


PS Back to your rod. There are two varying cases. If the rod is accelerated it will contract during acceleration (not much if it's rigid). And if the observer is at rest as the rod moves further into the distance, then there will be an 'apparent' contraction, which we call 'perspective'. Both these, like the primary cases in my last post, should be intuitive. Are you in agreement?

James Putnam replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 18:21 GMT

Ok I am clear about your view. Thank you.


Member Giovanni Amelino-Camelia wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 17:44 GMT
dear Peter

this is just to say that I enjoyed reading your essay

as you expected (your post on the blog for my own essay) I found in it some intriguing physical intuitions and a little theatre, all combined in enjoyable reading material

best wishes for the competition


Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 03:50 GMT
Dear Peter,

I'm just now realizing that there is a way to experimentally verify the validity of one aspect of what you've written and what has been shown mathematically in my essay. Please see the recent post for details.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:10 GMT

Interesting "there's nothing preventing "apparent" motion faster than c", (your blog Wolfram link) when it seems such a big deal to most that they can't rationalise or assimilate it, or the important consequences.

I've also had challenges about my use and definition of 'signal velocity', so the Sommerfeld and Brillouin use and 'definition' is helpful.

There are indeed already a number of experiments verifying this, including the finding of light reflecting from a moving mirror at c wrt the vacuum not the mirror. I have no lab, but do let me know what you have in mind. I have suggested some other experiments in a paper on the Kantor falsification accepted and due out soon. Send me an email (address above) and I'll pop something through to discuss.

Many thanks


Sreenath BN wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 08:49 GMT
Dear Peter,

This is for your kind information that my recent article published yesterday in the 'arxiv' along with my two colleagues ( has, I feel,something to do with your DFM.

I hope you grasp the significance of the article to your DFM and reply back.

Best regards,


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 15:02 GMT

I'm delighted at the verification the new arxiv paper offers. This also seems consistent with the 1955 Jauch and Rohrlich (QED) verification of the relative energy loss from bremsstrahlung radiation from the 'Compton effect' of acceleration due to interaction. I had no room to include the Marmet quantification which was; 2.73x10^-21 (K^-2).

Frankly I have not yet deeply considered the relevance or realtionships there or with my own work so your thought would be appreciated. How consistent do you think it may be with the interaction quantification in my essay?

I might even slip a small citation of your derivation into my present main paper draft.

Many thanks


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 19:09 GMT
Hi Peter,

A nice overview of assumptions that are taken for granted and how they relate to the trouble with physics. It was a pleasure to read.

Thanks for pointing out how assumption 5 relates to my essay. I show that objects are cut off from attaining the speed c via an unexpected quantum mechanical effect and not the Lorentz transform. But even more astounding special relativity is still intact.

Thanks for visiting my essay blog and helping my cause.

Good luck in the contest,

Don L.

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 23:15 GMT

The frequency of the light waves as measured by a stationary observer is f=c/L, and by an observer moving with speed v towards the light source f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength. Also, in the frame of the moving observer, the formula f'=c'/L' is valid.

These are textbook formulas - if you accept them, please answer the following questions:

c' = ? ; L' = ?

Thanks, Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 19:13 GMT
You cannot derive c' and L' from f=c/L, f'=c'/L' and f'=(c+v)/L, can you Peter?

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 20:10 GMT

I can indeed. As f is a derivative, from f=c/L we may then find c = fL. We then consider the case, as found in reality, that on entering a new medium, wavelength L changes.

Now there is more than one observer case, as I pointed out on your string. But to keep it simple to start with, for an observer who CHANGES frame (observes in the emitter frame K then accelerates into the detector frame K') we may consistently obtain delta L and delta f to give c' = f'L'. We also then have f'=c'/L'. In other words wavelength and frequency can change inversely which conserves local c. Which is precisely as we find with Doppler shift, but misinterpret as we forget f is a mathematical derivative using a 'speed' (and thus time) not a 'real' physical quality.

In the other case of an observer who remains in the emitter frame, he will find apparent c+v (but not by actual interaction with the original emission).

Logic must be applied to mathematics as well as to nature. In logic I claim my Mr Spock trumps your belief led Captain Jim!


PS; The case of an observer accelerating from detector frame K' to emitter frame K in the opposite direction to the light gets VERY interesting, he does not interact with the original light pulse at all (except when both are accelerating). can you now work out what speed he finds the PASSING pulses apparently doing (wrt him) both before and after accelerating? I admit is IS initially quite testing, but once grasped is far more intuitive than the present nonsense!


Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 21:01 GMT

You forget f'=(c+v)/L but that is the gist of the story. For all waves other than light waves, when the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, he finds that:

- the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L

- the speed of the waves shifts from c to c'=c+v

- the wavelength does not change (L'=L)

For light waves, the observer finds that:

- the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L

Since the measured frequency shifts in exactly the same way for all waves (light waves included), it is reasonable to conclude that the mechanism is the same: the shift in frequency is due to the shift in the speed of the waves. That is, for light waves, just like for any other waves:

- the speed of the waves shifts from c to c'=c+v

- the wavelength does not change (L'=L)

Pentcho Valev

Jin He wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 16:16 GMT
Heaven Breasts and Heaven Calculus

Since the birth of mankind, human beings have been looking for the origin of life. The fact that human history is the history of warfare and cannibalism proves that humans have not identified their origin. Humanity is still in the dark phase of lower animals. Humans can see the phenomenon of life only on Earth, and humans' vision does not exceed the one of lower animals. However, it is a fact that human beings have inherited the most advanced gene of life. Humans should be able to answer the following questions: Is the Universe hierarchical? What is Heaven? Is Heaven the origin of life? Is Heaven a higher order of life? For more than a decade, I have done an in-depth study on barred galaxy structure. Today (September 17, 2012) I suddenly discovered that the characteristic structure of barred spiral galaxies resembles the breasts of human female essentially. If the rational structure conjecture presented in the article is proved then Sun must be a mirror of the universe, and mankind is exactly the image on earth of the Heaven.

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 18:58 GMT
Dear Peter,

I've recently been finding comments on others threads that link to your work in a very positive manner. Congratulations! You seem to be making converts (as these are new names). That's great! And congratulations on your current ranking. It's a long hard slog, but your persistence seems to be paying off. Best of luck in this competition. I haven't yet ranked you, but am saving it for the end, when you may need it the most.


Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 10:33 GMT

Much appreciated. I find it hard to comprehend that the simplest of ideas seems the most difficult for physicists to assimilate. As I've just posted to Georgina: That a pair of photons 'passing by' a lens which is moving towards the source have a different distance between them and speed to those (adjacent ones after) entering the lens medium and optical nerve. The massive implications still seem to be missed by those too indoctrinated with standard assumptions.

To spell it out; This derives CSL for all observers from a quantum mechanism at the lens surface. This equals what Penrose termed the Holy Grail; The Unification of Physics.

An ontology of frames emerges with the same hierchical structures as Logic (TFL) and PDL) and when it's applied elsewhere it's absolute power and completeness emerges, including in Cosmology. Yet it is still invisible to most. It's quite bemusing. I suppose, as the post below shows, we are only human, run by emotion and belief.

Best wishes


James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 21:34 GMT
I repost here my response to Peter's comment, originally posted at Mario de Souza's essay blog, as Peter has done on my essay's blog...


I can only take offense to statements such as "Your comments don't make sense, I assume as based on misunderstandings." I will respond more rationally.

In relation to my comments (about the Bullet Cluster), they are entirely consistent...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 11:40 GMT

I'm now at a loss to understand your comments. Data must be consistently explained, as, when it's not, no support is given to theory. I tried to help, as asked, by identifying where the belief that radial disc outflows existed came from. It seemed you or Mario may have misinterpreted 'radial distribution' and/or 'velocity dispersion' as implying such motion so I explained their meanings. I'm quite flumoxed by your reaction and misinterpretation of my own comments, including that ALL matter interacts with em waves, but dispersion varies.

It seems a problem with receptiveness to wide speculative theory in cosmology is a tendency among non astronomers to cite such views as 'evidence' of fact, when of course it is not. Only the data gives evidence. The PRJ's at least allow a certain standard to be relied on for credible citation, even if they do mainly promote the ruling paradigm.

You've decided not to avail yourself of either data or most PRJ papers. That's fine, but it's not then reasonable for you to then accuse me of being wrong and insulting when I point out that the data itself does not accord with the theory. That is honest science!

If you wish for an astronomers advice on facts, he should give you the best facts available. The problems come with interpretation, which I agree may be quite rotten to the core. But if the data does not fit your theory it can't be the data assumed wrong without rigorous alternative explanation. Right or wrong that's how it works. I'd assumed you didn't want your thesis to just be dismissed by astronomers. I really don't feel I can offer any more.


James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT

Thanks so much for another lecture, but it seems you are still ignoring the evidence provided by the separation of gravitational potential and x-ray emitting gasses in galaxy cluster mergers. Again, the consensus interpretation among professional astrophysicists seems to be that this provides clear evidence of dark matter's existence since the lensing effect attributed to it cannot be produced by the ICM.

Also, please be aware that we have not been discussing the thesis in my essay at all - we've been discussing the thesis of Mario's essay. I think that Mario's thesis is valid and provides support for my thesis, but I already had supporting references in my essay for models producing observed spiral galaxy rotational characteristics without dark matter or modified gravity.

I'd be more than happy to discuss the thesis of my essay any time you wish, but we have not been addressing astronomers' invalid expectations for spiral galaxy rotation that led to the erroneous requirement for galactic dark matter.

Back to your thesis, I urge you to very carefully consider the evidence provided by the separation of gravitational potential and x-ray emitting gasses in observations of galaxy cluster collisions.

Sincerely, Jim

Anonymous replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 20:32 GMT

If someone resists accessing actual evidence but proposes something contrary that's fine, but that's called speculation not science and I'm sure you can judge how its veracity is viewed.

You now 'urge me to consider' evidence assuming I have not done so for both that and far better evidence very closely for some years. You assumption is incorrect. But I also still don't agree...

view entire post

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 02:33 GMT
Dear Uncle Peter Jackson

"Our physics needs ontology, philosophy needs nature.

Too weak those two alone, far greater wholes than sums of parts.

The road forks in the mist, we must decide, anon, not later.

Reject false points and lines, rotate in time, follow your hearts!

So is the soul of every man just built on his assumption?

Can we take arms and...

view entire post

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT
Hi Peter,

I read your essay over the weekend and enjoyed it greatly. Julie and I are fighting the same corner with our essay, not only by insisting on the value of philosophy for arguments in physics, but also by using philosophy and ontology to reflect on the idea that space cannot 'really' be nothing. Of course our and your position goes the other way too, and discoveries in physics can have deep implications for philosophy. As you say in your sonnet, "Our physics needs ontology, philosophy needs nature."

In our case we used the physical discoveries about the vacuum to redefine the notion of 'nothing', and by extrapolating from that were able to come up with our notion of "energeum" which fits the bill for a neutral monist stuff, which is something philosophers have been looking for for some time.

The deep nature of energeum, and of space as a real medium as you have defended it to be, is going to be an interesting task to unravel. I believe that there is a good explanation for everything that exists or happens, and that there is no principled argument for why any of these explanations should be beyond the range of what science and philosophy working together can discover.

Good luck in the competition!

Regards and thanks,


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 18:57 GMT

Thanks, the rise of maths over philosophy has had no success in fundamental advancement. I think it's an essential tool that must be improved, but no more than that. Also, and this has been missed, both must learn more from the rules and structure of logic.

I propose an inertial frame is precisely equivalent to a proposition. It truth propositional logic (TPL) Propositions are discrete but hierarchical, so may be compound and 'nested'. Each compound proposition must be resolved within itself, then with respect to it's neighbour. It has no relevance to anything 'once removed'. i.e. OIt is REAL and LOCAL, with boundaries. Dynamic (Modal) logic follows that and applies it to kinetics ('interleafing'). Frames are then mutually exclusive, but as small as each electron (if in motion in it's LOCAL background).

Steve Sycamore just posted a JJ Thompson quote;

"... the super-dispersive property is due to the presence of the electron, in other words that the electron provides its own ether."

I see no conflict with energeum, as the electrons are condensed from it's energy to implement change. The key is in the 'motion', which as a concept must be relative, i.e. change (between 1 and 0?). Does that fit OK with you?


James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 01:56 GMT

We're now discussing my claim that the separation of lensing effects and x-ray emitting intracluster media falsifies your assertion that the effects attributed to dark matter can be attributed to plasmas. Please do Mario the favor of excluding remarks about him from this discussion, as he has made no such claims and in fact I've had no discussions with Mario about this claim of...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 10:29 GMT

Than was rather dense with assumptions with which I disagree, and also read like more of a 'Lecture' than my reply! A most fundamental one made is that dark matter 'can't be baryonic' or interact. This is certainly often suggested but far from proven, and there's ample evidence of gravitational interaction (also with and of galaxies themselves when close enough to do so). If we start from different assumptions we can't fail to end up with different conclusions.

(Your comment in para 2 seems to suggest you agree with high densities of non-baryonic 'dark matter', but perhaps you could clarify).

As you seem resistant to investigating n-body systems semi-analytical modelling of evolving gravitational effects (consistent with my thesis and most patterns found) I've tried to find some good quality non speculative papers on arXiv. there are precious few. However, one of the top teams in the field, led by Kevin Pimbblet, have logged some MNRAS papers there. One much cited work is here;

Please do read it all through carefully, (you'll notice it presents maximum data and findings but draws no conclusions where uncertainties remain) then perhaps we'll be able to communicate properly on more solid foundations rather than simply state different beliefs. You'll note the comments about Xray detection and electron densities, which are consistent with most data and PRJ papers, if not with a number of other theories, some of which you cite. Both are valid, but overall weight of (real) evidence does lean heavily towards ions. I should add that ions here while referred mainly as free electrons include the other fundamental particles including positrons, as found happily annihilating away recently in the ionosphere!

Do revert once you've read the paper.


James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:44 GMT

There was NO assumption that dark matter cannot interact - that was established by the evidence - the location of the identified lens effects relative to the point of collision and the non-interacting galaxies (I'm specifically referring to the Bullet Cluster here). Again, this is not just my interpretation but, as best I can determine, the consensus interpretation of the...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 12:46 GMT

What you 'determine' as the 'consensus of the astrophysics community' is most certainly not. I already pointed out that was 'cherry picking' from the full gamut of theories available, which is simply not what astronomers do.

I'm sorry but if you don't wish to look at the full evidence, and maintain a 'partisan' not balanced view, there is no more to discuss and your proposal is unlikely to be taken seriously by the 'astrophysics community'. I have serious research to do and can now afford no more time on this.


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 13:02 GMT

When the observer starts moving TOWARDS the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L. When the observer starts moving AWAY FROM the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c-v)/L. Can you justify these frequency shifts based on your light-changed-speed-on-arrival theory? You write in your essay:

"If light travels at a speed of distance d divided by time t (d/t = km/sec) then how can it be found always at c (~300,000km/sec) by all moving observers? A simple answer would be that light changed speed on arrival. Light would then travel at c= d/t through a background medium, but change to local c when meeting an observer."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT

You wrote: "In the Doppler shift case, due to motion (in non-zero time) it is distance that changes. So shifts in f are found because effective L [L is wavelength] changes on interaction with a detector."

When the observer starts moving TOWARDS the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L. Is this frequency shift due to a change in the wavelength? If yes, start from the wavelength change and derive the frequency shift. If not, the frequency shift is due to a speed of light shift: relative to the observer, the speed of light shifts from c to c'=c+v.

When the observer starts moving AWAY FROM the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c-v)/L. Is this frequency shift due to a change in the wavelength? If yes, start from the wavelength change and derive the frequency shift. If not, the frequency shift is due to a speed of light shift: relative to the observer, the speed of light shifts from c to c'=c-v.

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 14:09 GMT

Analogy; You shrink, and sit at rest in the NEW medium frame (K' at n=1), which is doing v through the background frame (K at n=1). You are at the refractive plane with a tape measure and a stopwatch. Your bird at rest (K) in the approach medium has told you the approaching waves are doing c and are 10 metres apart in her frame.

As a wave hits the refractive plane (at...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT

Yes, but different for each observer case. Case 1 is for an observer remaining at rest in the APPROACH frame as the new medium passes him by (he can thus only see the passage of light waves (or lets use a string of pulses) via scattering from the particles of other medium). ANSWER; He sees apparent c+v. But remember nothing anywhere is REALLY breaching c, he's just an Einsteinian so fooled by the sequence of fairy lights in the other medium each lit up in turn by each pulse and scattering light at c. So ALL light really does c (modified by any n value

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 13:13 GMT

Yes I can show delta lambda, but you must drop those assumptions to see it. The above post crossed in cybersapace with yours of 15.32, and got cut in half! So first I'll complete that, with Case 2, then reply separately to the 15.32 post.

In case 1 of an observer fixed in the APPROACH frame you'll have seen once a pulse enters the new lump of medium moving past him, he is...

view entire post

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT

"we also know JUST AS WELL that wavelength changes with frequency in Doppler shifts..."

This is simply not true. At least for waves other than light waves, when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the wave source, the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, the speed of the waves relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v and the wavelength remains unchanged: L'=L. This is trivial, Peter.

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 16:08 GMT

I've shown how CSL is derived for all observers, WITH (local) background frames via an underlying quantum mechanism. Wavelength (lambda) and frequency change inversely to conserve c. Wheeler was correct. It was TOO simple to see!

Your ingrained assumptions are blinding you. You claimed the change to lambda was not true "other than light waves". Well firstly; when sound waves actually ENTER and propagate through a co-moving medium of COURSE the wavelength changes! You are not thinking about the important mechanisms between the detector interaction and the brain. This is indeed new, so will be unfamiliar.

But we are of course here only DEALING with light waves anyway, so you have no falsification.

Any objection is beyond trivial, it is clearly wrong! So if you disagree, and don't think your assumptions are the problem, revert to the scenario and try to falsify it.


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:14 GMT
Hello Peter, hope this finds you well. Inspired by you, I have taken to encouraging essay writers to read and rate their fellow contest contributors' work.

This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.


Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT

Yours is the only essay exposing new underlying physical reality. I've just read it again, and there was far more detail embedded than I recalled from the first read. It's a bit of a brain teaser folowing the implications of 'evolving interaction' as you put it, but an eye opener. I'm very please mine is compatible and describes the 'frame boundary' physics. I particularly like you 'fluid dynalic coupling' (or 'magnetohydro'-dynamic..) analogy.

I think you desereve to win by far. Quite brilliant thinking.

Very best of luck in the final results. Let's hope you find an intelligent and open minded judge who can see it.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 12:48 GMT

Very Kind. Yes I agree its a major advance, of physics if not of understanding (quite yet). It is quite difficult to assimilate the mechanism, particularly as evolving kinetics are involved, and as it is indeed an unfamiliar concept. You flatter, but you too found one of the key mechanisms, which I think opened the door in our mind to the whole picture. For most that door is still shut, and they can't be blamed for that. I confirm the helical or twin vortex toroid soliton wave/perticle you describe is also straight out of the top drawer and consistent with my 'Discrete Field' model (DFM) as well as others here. I assume that was you above by the way, with similar 'cut'n paste' issues to those we're all having. I'm taking Brendan's advice and mainly writing elsewhere and pasting in when done (says he writing this reply straight in!)

The subject of this competition was ideal for finding new physics to rid us of the confusion, but it seems we all have to dig deeper still to extract the hidden assumptions. Many thanks for your support. Last year I called the essay '2020 Vision' as a double entendre stating that I estimated it would take until 2020 before the way out of the mess I present is actually fully understood and starts affecting things. I always was an optimist!

Best wishes


Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT

I will reply to your post here under your thread, in two parts. This is part I.

You wrote about my essay:

“Viraj, We agree about the inherent foundational errors and seemingly most other things. Perhaps we view the world similarly, ……. Super essay, I agree with almost all, and a good score coming. I felt while reading...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 19:22 GMT

Reply to Pt.1. You introduce the term "when the photon confronts a constraint" and say; "In this case mass m and lambda L vary conjugately to m' and L' while the linear velocity c remains constant."

My thesis starts by stating that I am considering only the condition where the 'photon' confronts and interacts with a medium particle or 'constraint'. I am thereby proposing that...

view entire post

Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 19:31 GMT
Dear Peter,

I feel the need to highlight your powerful words of wisdom here:

"The subject of this competition was ideal for finding new physics to rid us of the confusion, but it seems we all have to dig deeper still to extract the hidden assumptions."

We would probably all like to rest easy. But not only do we all seem to need to work hard to properly understand one another, the understanding we reach together is yet another challenge going forward.

Thanks for your observation,


Fred Dobbs wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 21:30 GMT

Nice use of literary allusions in your essay. I want to answer the charges Viraj had made about possible backstabbing and scoring in this contest as that might seem untoward. Beyond the quality of the essays which of course differ, there is likely to going to be a strong correlation with the number of people who read and score one's essay. You are one of the most friendly of all the contestants and have commented on many of the essays in this contest. In fact, you have also promised a large number of the essays good scores, as can be seen be doing a google search using: "jackson" "score" '2012". So it is understandable that if some percentage of these folks actually read your assay and find it interesting, you will receive more good scores than an essayist that is not as well known.


Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 01:48 GMT
Hi Fred,

Thanks for your impartial observations.

I would like to clarify one point. You seem to think that the essays with the highest aggregates of scores are automatically at the top of the list. Not necessarily.

How the ratings work is, if you get even one very good score, at this stage you are high on the list. It is the average that works. So at this stage even if a few have read and rated your essay, your position on the list depends on the average and not the aggregate.

But come the end of the rating process, your average needs to be in the highest 35 with at least ten ratings to enter the finals. That’s all you need,

If one has a lot of good scores aggregated early enough by canvassing, then it is difficult to bring the average down by the other authors ganging up against you and giving you low scores.

I think the contest is not properly organized. The authors should not have been given the option to do the ratings. It should have been left for an independent panel.

Who in the Community will have the time to read all 270 odd essays and do a systematic rating? In such a situation, FQXi should not put ( as they are doing now) a few “Top Essays” only in their main site highlighting them in the Community Forum, while leaving no opportunity for other essayists lower down to get the attention to their essays, of the Community who are the real voters. By this highlighting of “Top Essays”, by FQXi, it is those essays that will tend to get rated by the Community and not others. (Others only randomly if at all).

Instead of the funds being used for Prizes, these funds should have been given to independent reviewers to select the best 35 essays for the Judges to decide. (No Prizes means only those who are serious would have entered).

Best regards,


Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 17:22 GMT
Fred, Viraj

Thanks Fred. I hope you also spotted the new fundamental mechanism deriving the 'classical' from the 'quanta' without paradox. But it does take a bit of 'self build' to fit the sequence together and see the effects.

Viraj is correct about the scoring system. I also agree his essay is underrated, but I would as it mostly agrees with mine! Many may not agree.

Viraj, if you look at my last two essays you'll see I've had much practice trying to get the complex concept across when it is so 'unfamiliar' when viewed from a 'current physics' standpoint. There is not just one assumption we need to drop but the series of 8 I identify. Most minds can cope with 3 at a time. That is why physics will probably remain blind to it until around 2020 (as the double entendre title of my essay last year - which finished 10th in the community standings).

But Viraj, look at last years prizes. They bore little resemblance to the Community places. I recall the second finisher was completely ignored, as was mine. I feel mine needs to be in single figures to be taken seriously.

The judges can only read a limited amount, and Community scores only serve to keep that within reason. But I do think Constantinos is correct and with near 300 entries it should perhaps be 50 read. Perhaps a % of entries would be more sensible? But I think the competition is a massively valuable resource and very well run, so changes need careful thinking through. One thing to improve may be publicity, getting more physicists and 'public' to read and comment. A lot of effort by authors seems to go to waste.

Best wishes


Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 22:06 GMT
Dear Peter,

Here is Part II

(I am attaching this same text since there is a diagram which will not show on the blog directly. So it would be better if the readers open the attachment right away. And also on this blog what will appears as sin q, is sin(theta), cos q is cos(theta)

Peter wrote: “I suggest a 'simplest conceivable NON mathematical idea' was yet to be found, and...

view entire post

attachments: Refractive_Index.doc

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 09:49 GMT

I agree, engagement and critical review are most valuable. Just dismissing new ideas without effort to understand the viewpoint they arise from, as you felt Lawrence Crowell did (he seems experienced at it) is of little value to anyone. But let's be honest with ourselves, this is precisely what you've done with mine. Most of your comments on my string are about your own ideas and...

view entire post

James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 01:10 GMT

For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 16:55 GMT

Sensible approach. I aimed to read most, but not 300 even speed reading! (which I find pretty useless for grasping complex concepts). I've been astonished by the high quality of so many this year, and mostly say so where due. My comments to Vijay were entirely sincere. I'm a bit disappointed he seems to have misunderstood the mechanism I describe, but I'll explain that in my response. I haven't scored Vijay's yet as I do prefer at least a short response first, but I think it's undervalued, and on my list he's pencilled in for a good one.

You'll confirm though I discussed yours that I did not 'Promise' you a high score (ref Fred's comment above), though I did indeed rate it quite well for reasons perhaps different to most but good none the less. In fact I have no compunction in revealing I gave yours an unheralded 8. I recall you has not assimilated the 'content', which comment was very helpful to me. I do hope you may have done so now if you've re-read it, but I admit it is a very big ask! As Stephen has spotted, it really does need some very deep fundamental assumptions rooted out and incinerated. Even then the concept, when grasped, can slip away again without regular rehearsal. Do tell me what in particular came up against your 'truth wall'.

Very best wishes in any case


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 16:55 GMT

I wrote: "At least for waves other than light waves, when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the wave source, the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, the speed of the waves relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v and the wavelength remains unchanged: L'=L. This is trivial, Peter."

You replied: "Wavelength (lambda) and frequency change inversely to conserve...

view entire post

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 17:36 GMT

You also wrote: "You are not thinking about the important mechanisms between the detector interaction and the brain. This is indeed new, so will be unfamiliar."

I find this more than irrelevant. However the FQXi community find it extremely valuable, hence your top rating.

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 18:07 GMT

"I was referring to what the whole world - both relativists and antirelativists - teach." I agree. Our teaching is simplistic. That is why physics is in such a mess with no way out visible. The simple beliefs in your quotes are long held, and if you have your way, will remain held even longer. Perhaps forever!

I'm saying we should use our brains more to find the way out. By definition this will be 'different' to what we are used to. What you are saying is that the solution I offer 'must be wrong as it's different.' In fact Feynman pointed out the right answer "must be different, so will look wrong!"

So each can't be judged against current beliefs, but must be judged for logical self consistence (as just passed 100%), and consistency with empirical evidence.

Well however much you may try to suggest otherwise, em waves are found empirically doing c/n in all media! (i.e. CSL). So mine is the only ontological model the DOES met all empirical evidence 100%!!!! And it has NO down side. Tell me what inconsistencies you imagine there are and I'll show you why they are not.

You've failed to falsify it, so why not just test it, and embrace it. If you disagree then go back to my analogy and try again. I suggest you'll just keep failing. It works perfectly, and at's the only way SR is ever going to be replaced by logical physics.


Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 19:17 GMT

As far as the Doppler effect is concerned, the "observer" or "receiver" or "detector" is just a line the wavecrests reach:

"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."

So your "important mechanisms between the detector interaction and the brain" are completely irrelevant.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 21:28 GMT

You asked: "Can you calculate frequencies of arriving signals without using your brain?"

Certainly not. Using one's brain is indispensable. For instance, Tony Harker uses his brain and calculates both the frequency and the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer:

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (...) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t", then the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is c'=c-Vo, in violation of special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 08:47 GMT

So as your brain measures the frequency, the impulse spacing that REACHES your brain is the only spacing that matters. Yes?

Ergo any change between the surface of the lens and the brain is of the utmost importance! Ignoring this is why physics has remained in the dark.

Assuming that mechanism is "completely irrelevant" as you suggest is the big mistake science has been making, and quite falsifiably. The frequency the brain measures is a direct result of the wave peaks CLOSING UP on detection (interaction) at the lens as it moves towards the source; so f and L BOTH change! That then must always conserve local c.

Surely even the most deep rooted of old assumptions are exposed as lacking when you apply your brain to this.


Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 07:40 GMT

Your statement (and respective "theory") that the Doppler shift depends on "the process between the lens and brain" is just as reasonable as the statement "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length". The fact that your community rating is so high speaks very badly of the community.

Pentcho Valev

Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 00:43 GMT

1. I will accept your comments about my essay are sincere.

(Funnily, it appears some readers did not like my attitude in my posts to you about this matter. My essay plummeted yesterday by about 30 places!!! Who cares!!).

2. You wrote: “One thing to improve may be publicity, getting more physicists and 'public' to read and comment. A lot of effort by authors seems to...

view entire post

Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 17:58 GMT

First of all I would like to correct something you have mentioned about someone else. What I meant about Lawrence Crowell is the exact opposite. In my opinion he seems to have the exceptional ability to get the essence of another’s view point even with a quick browse. And I quoted his comment to confirm, that he too had come to the same conclusion as Sergey Fedosin, that all...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 19:30 GMT

I absolutely agree about non-liner affects. As an astronomer these can however become significant due to scale, such as in lensing. Another is the kinetic Sunyaev Zeldovich (kSZ) effect I discuss, still not yes assimilated into mainstream theory. At smaller scales is 'kinetic reverse refraction' (KRR), well proven but still totally ignored by present theory as it simply won't fit! ...

view entire post

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:54 GMT

As said in my forum, I think that your essay deserves to be evaluated by the judges. I will comment now in the specific question that you asked me about the Yukawa or 'screened Coulomb' potential.

The Yukawa potential is a modification of the Newtonian potential based in some distance scale r0. For distances r0 >> r, we obtain the Newtonian potential. For larger distances, we obtain deviations from the Newtonian potential. There are at least two difficulties with this approach. First, we obtain a series of 1/r, r0, r1, r2... corrections to the Newtonian 1/r2 force. You need fine-tuning of r0 for minimising all except the 1/r term. Second, we observe both Newtonian and non-Newtonian behaviour for a given distance, whereas a Yukawa potential provides different behaviour only for different distances.

Milgrom proposed an acceleration-scale modification of Newtonian gravity for solving such issues. This scale is a0. For small accelerations a0 >> a we obtain the non-Newtonian 1/r force. For larger accelerations a >> a0, we obtain the ordinary Newtonian force 1/r2. Milgrom law explains why there exists both Newtonian and non-Newtonian behaviour at the same distance. Concretely, Milgrom law explains why some galaxies show non-Newtonian behaviour, whereas others do not.

Further research explained in my essay allows us to go beyond Milgrom well-tested law, explaining phenomena that his law cannot explain, including the physical meaning and value of a0 (Milgrom obtained the value from observations).


Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 15:43 GMT

Thanks. That gave me a little more insight. I do also see Yukawa with a little more flexibility, mapping the sharper cut off to virial radii, and a physical analogue from the high particle shock densities we're now finding in space exploration (10

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 17:50 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 04:06 GMT
Dear Peter,

That’s a very interesting essay and creative writing style. Your ideas and though experiments conduct us to an entirely new view on relativity and light. But I’m afraid I couldn’t understand your ideas more in depth since I couldn’t follow all you math. It will take more time. I’m not very good on relativity so I need a step by step reading and checking the equations for understanding it in depth. I was also interested in your use of propositional and dynamic logic. I believe these other logics (temporal or dynamic) will be very important for understanding not only relativity but all physics. You do not apply these logics more carefully in this essay, have you already done or you are currently working on it? Anyway, we have similar interests, and I would like to keep our discussions beyond the scope of this essay…

Wish you all the best!


Tom Miles wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 12:45 GMT
Hello Peter,

You have a well constructed essay which should gain you high marks.

Since I endorse an Emission-theory model of light, there are very few contentions in your paper to which I can relate. An issue I would like to discuss relates to three of your comments in Act 1:

"Light would then travel at c= d/t through a background medium, but change to local c when meeting an...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 20:35 GMT

Thanks. I agree emission at local c for all particles, so inertial systems. In that case there is no appropriate single word for the speed increase, and the word 'acceleration' may be misunderstood. Language lags behind and is a drag on understanding of nature. In last years notes I suggested a few new words. Guess how many caught on!

The term 'emission theory' is also inadequate, as the DFM is not such it terms of classical d/t, but is indeed at the quantum scale. This very fact and underlying mechanism can unify QM and Relativity by deriving the SR postulates and curved space-time. But I often feel as if mankind has been hypnotised not to recognise the importance of that, and indeed to look away whenever the answer appears!

Your 'belief' about coupling events is certainly cutting edge mainstream Raman scattering theory so should not be challengeable evidentially. However, you are forgetting the primary source of n and Doppler shift which is coupling harmonics. ( i.e. n is valid even with no co-motion) That is what 'hides' the kinetic effect.

Sorry I didn't notice your post earlier.

Best wishes


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 17:26 GMT

i gave 10 to you

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:35 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 12:16 GMT
Please don't forget impartially evaluate my essay

Lorraine Ford wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 13:30 GMT
Hi Peter,

your essay presents ideas in a very original and creative way. However, I hope you won't mind if I say that the 3 act play format hindered rather than helped my reading!

Best wishes,


Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 15:00 GMT

Many thanks. Some can visualise kinetically, others not. The format was partly to help thinking in way most are not familiar with, and clearly break down the rather cumbersome set of 8 connected assumptions that reform to create the ontological construction.

I'd hoped you may comment on whether or not you agreed the rather important underlying mechanism exposed for unifying QM and Relativity. Perhaps the format distracted you. It is complex (otherwise it would have been found before) I'm certain well under half here did assimilate it.

But thank you kindly anyway.


Steve Dufourny Jedi replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:45 GMT
sorry Lorraine, but Peter and me, we don't understand anything of your reasoning :)

It is true no Peter? a ball and a sphere are in a bar, do you think that the number 11 and 42 are unified because the Ex says that the nD strings are ok.

Of course the parallelizations of quantization are universal and spherical.:) I love this platform.

Revolution spherization.

Daniel Wagner Fonteles Alves wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 13:44 GMT
Dear Peter

The points you cover in your essay are fundamental. I totally agree with you that, as you said in my entry, ''motion seems at the heart of misunderstanding in physics''. Physics actually is the science of motion, and any new thoughts or conceptions of motion can lead to major breakthroughs. And I think your essay could provide a new such conception. Besides that, I feel your...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 15:16 GMT

Thanks for your long post. You assimilated what many failed to, the 'relational conception', but didn't quite also find the link with the 'local preferred frame' structure.

I only have a mo but I'll first conceptualise then analogise; All matter has it's own exclusive state of motion (frame). Light instantaneously changes speed to c wrt all frames on arrival. Let that sink in deeply and be kicked around for a bit.

Now imagine each particle of matter as the driver of a car. The car is the limit of the frame. It forms the physical boundary. It contracts when it changes frame to that of a truck coming the other way, and light entering it hits the screen and changes speed, to d c wrt the car.

Just consider all that for a while. I'll get back, or do revert to discuss.

Best wishes


James A Putnam replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 15:39 GMT
Dear Peter,

You said to Daniel:

"Now imagine each particle of matter as the driver of a car. The car is the limit of the frame. It forms the physical boundary. It contracts when it changes frame to that of a truck coming the other way, and light entering it hits the screen and changes speed, to d c wrt the car."

This description causes me to ask again for you to distinguish between: Local changes of the speed of light and its effect upon photons, and: That which happens physically to objects such as cars and drivers. My current understanding of your position is that cars and drivers do not themselves physically suffer relativity effects due to relative velocities. I will also ask about clocks. If a clock is moving close to and horizontally to the surface of the Earth will it slow down its time keeping function? One more question, If a common macroscopic clock is moved from a stable high position above the Earth to a stable position on the Earth will it have changed size and rate of its time keeping function due to General Relativity type effects?

I am asking only about the immediate local physical effects on the objects themselves and not about what happens to photons after having left the objects or about photons that may be arriving to the objects.


James A Putnam replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 20:52 GMT

I posted a message with questions above in this thread. Am pointing to it in case it got buried too quickly to be noticed. Thank you.

James Putnam

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 11:15 GMT
Dear Peter,

Congratulations for the essay. Nice way to package as a play interesting ideas.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:33 GMT
Peter, I also suffered the attack. I was oscillating about 21-26 since the last week and suddenly yesterday I dropped 50 positions in about 15 minutes.

I have very important information about what happened. I sent you an email for discussing the actions to take before I post this delicate info in my forum and in topic/1263


Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:50 GMT

Yes, it seems we could 'multiply rate' for a while, so yours suffered as mine and a dozen or more others with massive almost 'instant' drops. This smells very bad and seems to needs action from Brendan urgently to avert a major scandal and restore credibility. I've seen no response yet.


Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 15:21 GMT
Official answer by Brendan in topic/1263

Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 18:33 GMT

Yours is the only essay with a new fundamental mechanism adavancing physics, and it also stays right on topic identfying the wrong assumptions we've been using. it needs a new way of thinking, so many may be blind to it. I do hope more and more see it.

A 10 from me, Well done.


Jin He wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents; it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning.

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 22:29 GMT

I think Planck was correct. But they've now found a way round it. Before they 'die out' they now indoctrinate a new generation by failing those who don't toe the line. That is a portent for the end of the experiment on mankind. Perhaps a student rebellion is needed against the worst. But there are still many open minded and non arrogant and complacent Professors. Have faith and show mankind can prevail by making it happen. I can now provide the tools.

Perhaps China or the East is the only place the change must now start to succeed.

Best wishes


M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 20:01 GMT
Mr. Jackson,

congratulations on the well written, *fun* to read, essay, packed with thought provoking facts. There are many essays in this contest challenging the assumption that space is 'empty'. Let us hope that our message will not fall on deaf ears.

After the things will settle down, which thankfully is soon, and we all can relax about the ratings, I would very much appreciate your feedback on my essay (topic 1547).

Congratulations on making the list of finalists! (even though I confess that I disagree with one of your opinions and that is, "In reality there is only ever ONE absolute time!" -- the important thing is that we can agree on most).

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 21:24 GMT

Thank you kindly. Perhaps more could resolve the Chinese puzzle than I expected, though it still seems few have completed the full ontological construction. For some it may have been written in Chinese! I appreciate your comments. I'll try to initially speed read yours, I may ever break the 200!

I must explain the one absolute time better then you may agree. To any observer there is local time in his own frame, (Proper Time) then there are different apparent rates of passing within arbitrary many OTHER frames, and all signals emitted in these frames are Doppler shifted when entering his own frame. But for each system, i.e. universe there is a collective 'state of motion', just like there is for a galaxy. THAT is the one 'absolute' time to which I refer. It is for all purposes irrelevant for anyone inside each universe. Local background frames are the key, and always exist, hierarchically nested. My essay should perhaps now be re-read with that in mind to become clearer, though the essay is the tip of the iceberg ontology.

Did that sound closer to your intuition?


M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 22:39 GMT
Peter, congratulations on making the list of finalists!

And sorry for the delay. I needed a break from physics and enjoy some birthdays going around. I don't do physics all the time, like most people here. For me it's a compulsion that comes and goes and usually does not last this long. Suddenly I felt exhausted. But it's not over for you, lol. Enjoy the ride!

Re time, no matter how...

view entire post

Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 23:38 GMT
Hi Peter,

You indicated you would comment on my essay on my 'string'. And it seems to be your policy that you comment only on those essays whose authors have commented on yours. I have fulfilled that bargain quite well. I am awaiting your comments on "Geometrodynamics of Energy" with which I have explained cardinal relativistic phenomena without reference to space-time whatsoever. I have proved the constancy of the velocity of light etc. etc.

Here's my essay:

I request you to respond under my essay.

Hoping to hear your comments.

Best regards,


Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 18:01 GMT

Yes, I consider it courtesy to read & reply. I did so on 28th Sept on your string (the 'blog' comments under your essay) to which you have not yet replied as you seem to have missed it. If you reply to that there and I miss it please flag it up here for me.

To explain my 'policy', I'll always try to respond to comments, and read the essays, otherwise my priorities are 1/ Titles seeming to disagree with my findings (valuable falsification), 2/ Titles of interest or I wish to learn more about, 3/ Titles that seem to agree with mine, and 4/ Authors I know do good quality work. I think I managed over 200, though many part speed-reading, which can 'bounce off' important concept without care.

That does mean I missed 2 in the top 10! but can now read and absorb them more thoroughly. I've been very impressed with the hight quality, running to many outside the top 100!

I note you have no orange bands on your replies, which means you're not 'logging in' (bottom left of page) to respond.

I look forward to your response.

Best wishes.


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 00:34 GMT
Thank you Peter, for your comment on my page.

Your thoughtfulness is appreciated. So that I may finish reading and rating papers all the papers I can, before the cutoff, detailed comments will have to wait. Be assured yours was included in those I read, however.

I had to work at it, though, as the semi-conversational tone was not so easy for me to follow. Or perhaps it simply makes one stop to think often, and I was hoping it would pull me forward instead. More later.

I wish you good luck.



Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 18:42 GMT

Thanks. It was designed to to help you stop and think, because the intellectual powers needed to assimilate each revised assumption and form the kit of epistemological elements into the full ontological construction are well beyond most of humankind. Most brains can hold 3 concepts at once and visualise interactions. This required EIGHT! and eight MODIFIED assumptions, then also...

view entire post

Judy N wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 08:38 GMT

Congrats. You and Tejinder are the only authors in the top ten 2yrs running. But why has your most fundamental discovery of the mechanism for CSL not made inroads into physics yet? I'm not a physicist, but in medicine such an advancement would be headline news within a matter of weeks (then admittedly years before the pills are swallowed). There seems an air of suspended disbelif, or has no-one noticed? I'm quite intruiged, though looking at the comments, many seem to have seen it but perhaps just not quite yet absorbed it.

I know architecture is PhD level and also needs professional qualifications, but are you also the only non full time physicist in the top 10? As in my own discipline, there is too often resistance to those not felt as 'in the club'. I hope you don't feel any sense of exclusion. It is you at the heart, and they wandering in poorer light further from the truth. (I thought you'd like that one!) Lovely peom by the way. It may even go down in history one day.

My very best wishes in your seemingly thankless task.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 20:22 GMT

So incisive. Changing a ruling paradigm in physics is far easier than changing the orbit of the sun round our AGN, but may take a little time (I may have been optimistic last year suggesting 2020). There are many 'ideas' out there, no system of assessment, and all focussed on their own agenda's so 'new' truths struggle to emerge. Your 'headline news' may be after 40 years of subjugation, as was proved with quasicrystals.

Interesting point on what I call comprehension. See my reply to Jonathen above. I suspect you're right.

Someone said reaching PhD level gives you the right to be wrong, which is how I felt, not any right to be right. Many in physics seem to feel otherwise, or a superiority and right to ignore or condescend to fellow man. You must know that temptation. It's easy to give in to, but we must recognise it and the rot it brings to have a chance of stopping it.

'Exclusion'? Hmmm. No, I never felt I wanted to join a crowd as I'd only see what they saw. 'Non full time'? True I still have to run the consultancy and don't have to earn money from physics, but as an FRAS and APS member and spending twice the time on research and writing than most professors that may be arguable! No, time is tight (want to buy a yacht?) but I'm very happy where I am. Thanks for those kind and interesting thoughts.

And strictly it was a sonnet not a poem. The Chaucerian iambic pentameter is about as initially tricky compared to rhyming couplets as learning new assumptions is for anyone indoctrinated with old ones, so I thought it appropriate in this context. But just a bit of fun really to lighten things up. Glad you enjoyed it, and great to hear from you.

Best wishes


Dan J. Bruiger wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 18:07 GMT
Hi, Peter

I've just gotten to reading your essay, which is way over my head, though I am attracted to its general aims. I've long been fascinated by the concepts and assumptions in SR. My intuitive (and very non-professional) take has been that the constant speed of light is an inevitable consequence of using light to measure all things. In effect: a problem of self-reference! Similarly, the problem of an absolute frame of reference boiled down to using light to detect motion through the specific medium for transmitting light. At the time (c 1900) nobody imagined "matter" that was not involved with electromagnetic signals. Yet somehow the dogma was established of constant c, that "nothing can travel faster than light", and that there is no medium permeating space that could serve as a preferred frame of reference.

p.s. I finally responded to your comments on my thread, for which thanks


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 21:00 GMT

You still have not deduced the Doppler frequency shift, from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, by assuming that the wavelength changes somewhere between the lens and the brain. Again: The observer is stationary and measures the frequency to be f=c/L. Then the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v and the measured frequency becomes f'=(c+v)/L. If the observer moves away from the light source the frequency is f'=(c-v)/L. Just deduce f'=(c+v)/L and f'=(c-v)/L from the variable-wavelength assumption.

You are the leading antirelativist now aren't you? (Don't tell me you are Einsteinian deep in your heart.)

Pentcho Valev

Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 22:03 GMT

I am sorry to say that what you have written does not make sense.

You wrote:

(Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 18:01 GMT)

“Yes, I consider it courtesy to read & reply. I did so on 28th Sept on your string (the 'blog' comments under your essay) to which you have not yet replied as you seem to have missed it. If you reply to that there and I miss...

view entire post


Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 12:02 GMT

I'm sorry but I'd thought the ball was 'back in your court' to respond to my Oct 1 post on my blog or to my earlier post on yours. I was also flat out fighting the slow system, reading essays and responding to (250+!) posts. But my most sincere apologies must come for your rating, as I've checked, and did not indeed get to score your essay despite my genuine notification of intent. To...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 22:19 GMT

Doppler shift is observed IN the new frame, by observer B, NOT by the stationary observer A watching the moving '3D block' of medium go past him. Same with sound. If you're moving with the ambulance you don't hear a Doppler shift. OK?

Observer A at rest with the original source in the background medium finds the light reaching him direct from it is doing c. Still...

view entire post

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 05:17 GMT

"Get a line of people 1m apart to walk past you at 3mph (or call it 'c' mph) and record the frequency."

OK. In an analogous (Doppler) scenario, I am stationary relative to the light source and the wavecrests (=people) pass me at c.

"Now stand beside a travellator and get then to do the same but stepping onto the travellator and continuing at c mph. You will find they have increased apparent speed, and increased wavelength (spacing), but pass you at precisely the same frequency!"

But Peter this is no more analogous to the Doppler scenario. In the Doppler scenario, I stop being stationary ans start moving towards the light source with speed v. Analogously, at the aiport, I start walking along the line of people with speed v, in the opposite direction. The spacing between people remains the same (1 m) but their frequency and speed relative to me increase.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 17:50 GMT

Roger Barlow explains the frequency shift in terms of varying speed of light, c'=c+v, and constant wavelength:

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

Is Roger Barlow right, Peter?

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 21:25 GMT

If you're not in their frame you see apparent c+v. Not 'real' c+v because their real (walking) speed in THEIR frame is still c. An observer at rest in that frame (standing on the travellator) would find their speed as c.

You cannot interact with them to find their real speed, wrt THEIR background frame, without yourself being at rest in that frame. If you stand beside the...

view entire post

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 02:48 GMT
Hello Peter,

It is good to see that you are in the final evaluations. I am among the lucky also, assuming there are no more ripples in the IGM (or the essay ratings), but I think your inclusion is well-deserved. And your encouragement of my work is also greatly appreciated. I trust the judges will treat you well.



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 08:50 GMT
Dear Peter,

Please find attached a file forerunner.


attachments: forerunner.doc

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 20:45 GMT

Many thanks re; 'forerunner'. First, Steve is one of the few who understands almost completely. 2nd; I would say your 'knowledge' is not 'wrong', but understanding too incomplete to date to fully rationalise. I explain below, but 3rd; The 'forerunner' is simply the 2nd part of the 'birefringence' found by Raman. There was scant space for this, so to clarify; In some media (i.e....

view entire post

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 21:26 GMT
Peter, Eckard,

Let us forget the emission theory for a while. X wavecrests hit the STATIONARY observer in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to him is XL, where L is the wavelength. Then the observer starts moving towards the light source so that X+Y wavecrests hit him in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L. Is that correct?

If it is, the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special trelativity.

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 06:19 GMT

You vehemently argued that the speed of light can globally exceed c. If I recall correctly, you claimed this idea of you being confirmed because velocities of 6c were observed in cosmology. Do you still maintain this idea?


In case of optical waves you are provable correct. There are people including me who do consider you correct in that respect with light, too. Me and you are however wrong if the notions of time and space are redefined in a grotesque manner called Einstein's special theory of relativity.


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 10:31 GMT
I wrote: "X wavecrests hit the STATIONARY observer in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to him is XL, where L is the wavelength. Then the observer starts moving towards the light source so that X+Y wavecrests hit him in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L. Is that correct? If it is, the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity."

Peter replied: "Yes, but you must specify WHICH waves, because the interaction creates a 2nd set, which are the ones the processor (or brain) 'times' to find f. We may term there 'refracted' waves R. The incident waves 'I' are those which include both the approaching waves and those 'passing by' the lens (also then equivalent to 'forerunners'). "Accordingly, the speed of" THOSE 'I' "waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L"

That is satisfactory to me, Peter. These are the waves whose speed is assumed constant in special relativity (but is variable in the real world). As for the 2nd set of waves, R, that you refer to:

Peter: "... the interaction creates a 2nd set, which are the ones the processor (or brain) 'times' to find f. We may term there 'refracted' waves R." can study them if you need to but I think that is totally irrelevant insofar as relativity is concerned.

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 13:56 GMT

The refracted waves R are indeed not recognised by SR.

They are however the only ones ANY detector made of matter can EVER measure.

All detectors are made of matter.

SR's most blindly avid supporter simply mix the refracted waves R up with the approaching incident medium waves I.

So the refracted waves are the only ones 'totally relevant' as far as nature is concerned.

That IS the Discrete Field Model (DFM); REAL LOCAL c' = f'/L' In the new frame.

APPARENT c+v = f/L' observed in the new medium FROM the old incident frame.


Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 14:35 GMT

Since you admit that "the refracted waves R are indeed not recognised by SR", then you should further admit that they are irrelevant INSOFAR AS special relativity is concerned. True or false, special relativity is a deductive theory and derives its conclusions from the assumption that the speed of what you call "incident waves", relative to the observer, is invariable. So you can attack special relativity by attacking THIS assumption. However considering processes of which special relativity says nothing is irrevevant, even if these processes are extremely important in other contexts.

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 15:24 GMT

I agree, but all you'd be attacking is one 'interpretation' of SR, allowing it to transmorph as it does so well. Many already agree flight velocity dt anyway. To really nail it for good, the specific fundamental wrong assumption it uses must be identified and falsified.

The assumption is: 'There is no background frame'.

It is true that there is not one SINGLE or 'ABSOLUTE' background frame, but there IS a LOCAL background frame for all motion. This can then be shown consistent with ALL the effects SR was conceived to explain, but WITHOUT the paradoxes.

That is the only way SR can be nailed without it's exponents simply slipping away and re-interpreting the same old rubbish. The BETTER SOLUTION needs to be ready and standing complete and square in the path of the slithy toves. It needs help to be completed, not squabbling.

As I say, bashing our heads against the stone walls of the troglodyte citadel is one way, but there is a better way. Fancy doing some science?


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 12:41 GMT

If we use the standard definition of speed:


...then indeed, since, as you put it, "the notions of time and space are redefined in a grotesque manner called Einstein's special theory of relativity", the speed of light relative to the observer proves invariable and that's that. However the wave model of light offers another definition of speed:

(number of wavecrests hitting the observer)(wavelength)/(time)

...which, on close inspection, shows that the speed of light is variable after all. My unfortunate essay was entirely devoted to this issue:

Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev

re castel replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 13:22 GMT

You say "the speed of light is variable after all."

According to the transformation equations, it is not the speed of light that varies. It is the amount of motion that goes into the electromagnetic phenomenon that varies.

In the linear translation of the phenomenon considered along the x-axis, the velocity c remains the same. But there is the right-hand-thumb rotation around the x-axis that has increased because of the applied velocity v, which changes the wavelength and frequency. Remember that in the phenomenon we have the inseparable transverse waves--electric and magnetic. The transverse waves rotate around the axis of their linear translation. Apparently, if you apply the velocity v, you hit the rotating transverse waves and get to increase the rotation.


Hi, Pete.

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 13:52 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

You know, I do not share your preference for an emission theory. However when I compare your known to me for long arguments with others, I would like if those instead of you withdrew their essays. Admittedly, I did not yet read your essay.

Best wishes for your life,


Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 14:10 GMT
Hi Raf.

Far far simpler than that I suggest. The Doppler effect simply compresses the waves due to the motion of the medium during the interaction.

What nobody has ever bothered to do in the past is stop and think through the mechanism and effects of that.

Mechanism: Absorption at relative c+v closing speed, re-emission at new locl c.

Effects; CSL, and the Postulates of SR proved.

It is only the problematic assumption of 'no background frame' that is proved wrong. No 'absolute' frame is relevant locally, but there is always a local background frame.

So Pentcho's words are is correct, just not the previous understanding. To render everything consistent; Light DOES change speed, to the new local c.

I'll hope you may read my essay again, as it should now all make complete sense.

Best wishes


Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for your reply. I will address the theoretical aspects in a later post.

You wrote: “But my most sincere apologies must come for your rating, as I've checked, and did not indeed get to score your essay despite my genuine notification of intent”.

I appreciate your position.

You also wrote: “It seems even with a 9 it would still have been well out of contention”.

Yes I agree it will be out of contention if you are the only one to score, and my average will not go up to the level of the first 35. But the average will go up from 3.1 to 3.4 that will make it jump about 30 spots. And do you know the essay in the 35th spot only has an average of 4.2. (The difference of averages between my essay and the 35th essay is only 1.1)

This means if there are 10 others like you who would score on the merit of the content of my essay (giving 6 -7), it will reach a position within the first 25.

All I request you is that you do is to fulfill your promise - do the needful and give it a start

Best regards,


Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 17:33 GMT

What your thesis finally says is far more important. You forget, scoring was over at midnight Eastern US time. That's why I was up past 2.30 am UK time trying to apply scores. The ability to score was switched off at that moment. I'm sorry, but there are also very many other good essays outside the top 35.

Let's get the complete ontology together, which should after all be our aim. I think your formulations may prove to be a useful or even key part once working within a full framework, possibly in a wide collaboration. I believe can get a couple of mathematicians to look over them. But first we'd need to ensure we fully comprehend each others thesis. I hope you can read mine again slowly and ask questions of the parts that don'rt seems to fit with yours.

best wishes


Member Joy Christian wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 21:38 GMT
Hi Peter,

First of all: congratulations for making the final list.

Many thanks for the APS link and for trying to stop the rumour from spreading further. Let it be known that Lawrence did exactly the opposite some months ago. He tired to spread that malicious rumour right here, on a FQXi page.

I did briefly look at your essay about a month ago, but as you know I have my hands full with my own fight. I will have a look at it again when I get a chance.

Best of luck for the remaining part of the contest,


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 02:34 GMT
Hi Peter,

I am curious. Do you have a direct link to the APS blog comment in question? I don't do LinkedIn so the link you provided will not connect for me. Sorry to see it, if someone is stirring up trouble, though.


Member Joy Christian replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 03:23 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

The comment in question has been removed from the APS blog, perhaps because I flagged it to be inappropriate, or perhaps because I threatened the author with a legal action. It was part of the character assassination campaign against me that has been going on in some private blogs for some time. A couple of bloggers (who are physicists, computer scientists, a statistician, and one failed essayists of our contest) have gone as far as manufacturing comments on their blogs on my name (i.e., as if the comments were by me admitting something or other or saying silly things). The idea behind the campaign is to discredit my work by discrediting me personally. Such character assassination attempts usually work. Since the rumours are circulating and added to for over a year now, some young and inexperienced students fall for them and spread them further, and that was the case in the now removed comment on the APS-Linkedin blog.


Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:17 GMT
I'm curious myself to know what happened. I responded to Peter's link on my linked-in account, then got a message that my access to the APS discussion group was "awaiting approval" though no such approval has yet been granted.


Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 10:27 GMT
ironical is a weak word in fact. I have pity for you. In fact you are simply a badteam of nothing for nothing.

one solution that said, RETURN AT SCHOOL please . Because there you reach the paroxysm of the stupidity.

Mr Vallet ahahahh is the friend of Whilhelmus.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:32 GMT
Jonathen, Joy.

If you're an APS member just email your member No to for "immediate access to the discussions." They say "Non-members are encouraged to participate in discussions, but comments may take up to 2 business days to post."

Fred commented, and I did also send another, pointing out such comments showed the standard of professionalism in physics in the poorest light. It wasn't posted, but may have helped removal of the offending post, and the subject leader then posted;

"I meant for this thread to be light, but I think Peter has a very good point. Thanks, Albert also for the link. It also says some of what Peter is saying.

I don't know that I want to close this thread yet (by the way, just in case, how does one do that?) as I hope it does not turn into heated discussions about theories between people who will never reach any understanding.

I had an officemate in graduate school who once asked whether people would have taken Einstein seriously if he had been yelling out his theories on the streets wearing a white robe (that's a reference to one of the Tintin albums for those familiar with the series) instead of talking in university seminars."

(The link was to Margaret Worthiams book)

As I'm both an FRAS and RIBA I can draw some comparisons between the professions. Let me say that it appears there is room for improvement in some science education at present. Inclusivity and general attitudes can be very poor, top to bottom. As has been said here, A PhD gives us a right to be wrong, not the right to be right that the more arrogant try to assume. It's no wonder scientists are loosing public trust!


Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 15:20 GMT
Dear Peter,

Congratulations with being in the top 10, you deserve it.

I ended up 3,7, but got a lot of encouraging posts , which is for me important too, you know my subject "consciousness" is not an exact mathematical one.

I am also following your APS comments (as you could see with the thumbs up I sent you.

I wish you a lot of luck in the final votes.


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 16:44 GMT

Thanks for the 'thumbs up,' keep em coming! and you congrats. I'm very happy with 7th both last year and this. If the judges simply passed it over again this year perhaps some fundamental questions should arise. It's been pointed out it's the only one actually providing a logically and mathematically consistent advance in fundamental understanding both years, which is after all the purpose of this site and contest we assume. Last years position was shown wrong at 10th at the time, which may of course have made the difference.

I agree your own essays topic doomed it to ignominity. I recalled you were going to have another go at absorbing and assimilating mine. It's a daunting task, requiring suspension of some long held assumptions, but it's very rewarding, so I hope you do.

Let me know how you get on. I really need to get a handle on presentation of the ontology. I suspect it needs moving pictures, which would need financing.

Best wishes


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 15:35 GMT

I wrote: "X wavecrests hit the STATIONARY observer in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to him is XL, where L is the wavelength. Then the observer starts moving towards the light source so that X+Y wavecrests hit him in a unit of time. Accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L. Is that correct?"

You replied: "Yes, but you must specify WHICH waves, because the interaction creates a 2nd set, which are the ones the processor (or brain) 'times' to find f. We may term there 'refracted' waves R. The incident waves 'I' are those which include both the approaching waves and those 'passing by' the lens (also then equivalent to 'forerunners'). "Accordingly, the speed of" THOSE 'I' "waves relative to the MOVING observer is (X+Y)L" The speed of the R waves, which is the only ones we can directly 'time' to find frequency, is then c' = X/L'."

Let me end the discussion in this way:

The incident (I) waves are RELEVANT.

The refracted (R) waves are IRRELEVANT.

The "community" (or some guardian angel) gave you high rating but I am afraid your essay will fail in the end. That the Doppler frequency shift has nothing to do with brain processes is more than obvious.

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 19:54 GMT

You needn't be afraid. This contest was about testing our ability to identify and abandon deeply held assumptions. It was not easy. Many have failed and religiously stuck with them, but others have proved it possible.

I've suggested that (not as assumed) both waves (and thus frames) are relevant to allow complete understanding of nature. Incident waves to explain observed dt, and Refracted waves to explain the apparent constancy of c found by all observers on measuring f.

It's interesting how we have no problem in accepting the wavelength change for the Doppler shift on emission between emitter and medium, but due to 100 year old over-simplistic thinking, and thus unfamiliarity, struggle so much to accept an identical wavelength change unavoidable on detection by a moving body, or at least it's importance as it is what observers 'find', implicit with the observed frequency and new c/n.

It may be best that you do not agree that both are relevant. Overcoming the extreme troglodites of relativism will require out-thinking them, as just 'shouting' at them has had no effect. The difficulty of assimilating the new ontology is thus a useful test. Perhaps your own attack can even be used as a distraction while those who understood my essay work with me to slip a Trojan horse into their midst. I'll welcome you to the party if we manage to open the gates.

See you then.

Best wishes.


Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 06:00 GMT

A light pulse reaches a clock and stops it, then (part of) the pulse reaches another clock and stops it. The speed of light as measured in the inertial system to which both clocks belong is equal to the distance between the clocks divided by the time it takes the light to cover this distance.

If the inertial system starts moving towards the light source with speed v, then the speed of light AS DEFINED ABOVE:

(A) shifts from c to c'=c+v.

(B) does not shift, according to special relativity (c'=c).

Which is true, A or B?

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 10:30 GMT

Two clocks are at rest, spatial distance between them L. If they remain in the rest frame we find speed c.

Now let's disect and fully define your scenario, and look at both possible cases.

1. REAL If the whole 'inertial system' K' (clocks and space between them) moves. Then we must put 'markers' in the old frame K where the clocks were. The pulse interacts with the first, but in the time it takes to reach the second, the second has moved. That is the delta L in the new frame.

2. APPARENT If only the clocks move, both through the background, then each clock is it's own local frame K'. The light between the clocks is then propagating in K, not the new inertial system you specified K', so any speed between them is only 'apparent' and will be calculated at c plus v.

I'll endure house arrest, but can't recant truth! We go round the sun, and light changes speed on interactions.


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT
Judy N wrote on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 09:23 GMT: "An emitter, even a voice, but consider a trumpet, emits at a wavelength and frequency. If it then starts moving, then the wavelength (so frequency) in the propagation medium changes. So we have delta L. Now consider perhaps the detectors eardrum, to which an oscillation rate is imparted. (We are now entering areas where you nor anyone has given deeper thought); Those oscillations are (so initially try to 'emit') at some wavelength L. If at rest with the medium this may match the L of propagation (we may here ignone n). BUT, and this is the crux, if the eardrum start moving; the changed frequency of arrival means a changed wavelength of re-emisssion L' alongside the changed frequency. The logic is impeccable, it matches observation, and it is as brilliant as it is unfamiliar. With light waves the ontology is, surprisingly for many, identical. Lambda and frequency deltas are inseperable."


If the eardrum (observer, detector, receiver) starts moving, the frequency and the speed of the waves relative to it/him change but the wavelength remains unchanged. You can clearly see this here.

Both you and Peter refer to possible changes of the wavelength AFTER the waves have crossed the outer boundary of the eardrum (observer, detector, receiver) but this is irrelevant.

Pentcho Valev

Judy N wrote on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 11:57 GMT

I have seen your desire to learn, but you must be aware it is currently disabled by your beleif that you do not need to. The video you cite nowhere claims that wavelength does not change. It simply does not ostensibly consider that case. There will be a thousand similar explanations, but none falsify the implicit inverse relationship of f and lambda. From 10yrs old we teach that...

view entire post

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 14:25 GMT

All reasonable scientists explicitly teach that, when the observer starts moving towards the source of SOUND waves, the frequency and the speed of the waves relative to him change while the wavelength remains unchanged.

Reasonable scientists are usually not so explicit about light waves because the topic is dangerous but sometimes they forget the danger and teach the same:

"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

Professor Sidney Redner: "We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 22:31 GMT
Doppler's Effect when Source is at rest and Observer is Moving. As you can see, Judy, the frequency and the speed of the waves relative to the observer change while the wavelength remains constant.

Pentcho Valev

Judy N replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 07:53 GMT

Your video shows only the simplified incomplete explanation that has been around for hundreds of years. It does not consider the quantum mechanism in interaction at an observer.

when learning potential new science, it is invalid to try to invoke old understandings to 'disprove' it. Nothing can be disproved in this way. You must forst understand the new axiom, analysis it, then falsify it. That is the only way to do science! I'm sure you're able to do that well, and will find the results enlightening.


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 15:14 GMT

You say 'scientists are...not so explicit' to say em frequency changes without lambda, 'but sometimes they forget the danger'. I entirely agree.

They were equally 'not so explicit' that the world was flat. It was just assumed. Hardly worth mentioning even. It was only when it was suggested that it was round that most became explicit that it was flat.

It was not easy for those convinced it was flat to think afresh and conceive it may not be so. Many probably never managed it. Galileo was in the same position, as we now are yet again. We can prove that c can remain the same while f and lambda vary inversely, and we always find local c from the observable f. Yet although logic then simply demands that lambda has changed instantaneously with f, our old beliefs demand it has not, so we need Special Relativity to explain it instead.


Sorry to butt in. I was entranced by your explanation, and suspect you understand the theory, sorry, perhaps 'Nature', rather better than me! Can I employ you as an agent? or in PR? If you have any other insights please do tell. You may also wish to read the Kingsley-Nixey essay which shows a (real) cross section through the refractive plane of the Earth's frame (Fig.2), defining the limits of the local kinetic state of the observer medium.

Pentcho - perhaps you may study, consider and comment on that essay's Fig 2. analysis. It is as my last years (also 7th placed community) essay predicted.



Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 18:26 GMT

The satellite/probe telemetry effect I invoke was first found in the 1960's. The Abstract below refers only to 'frequency' as they are discussing radio signals. Propagation speed is however c both ways as we know except for the minor atmospheric refractive index effect (ion plasma n=1).

This was considered to comply with SR as the speed is, and remains, dt=c in both the ECI and Barycentric (Sun's) frames. The only problem remains that the theory of it does not work without light CHANGING SPEED to a NEW LOCAL c, as formally accepted by the AIU in the 2000 resolutions. (" consistent theoretical relativistic basis...").

USNO Circ 179 said the answer was probably 'a few years away'. While the logical solution at hand can't be accepted due to incorrect assumptions it should perhaps be expected to remain so.

As the solution L' = c+v/f works mathematically may it not also have an analogue in nature?


Willman, J. F. Aerospace and Electronic Systems, IEEE Transactions AES-1 3. pp283-289 1965 Frequency-Dependent Ionospheric Refraction Effects on the Doppler Shift of Satellite Signals Analysis of four-frequency satellite Doppler data has allowed the separation and measurement of frequency-dependent ionospheric contributions to the Doppler shift, providing information useful in the study of errors incurred when tracking radio signals through the ionosphere. These refraction errors affect the accuracy of navigational position fixes obtained by Doppler satellite tracking systems. Some measured ionospheric refraction errors reported here are of interest because their magnitudes are significantly greater than those heretofore predicted from theoretical considerations.

Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 21:35 GMT
Dear Peter,

I'm back now from a trip (sorry for the late answer). Thanks for your words about my essay. With great interest I read yours.

After a second look, it seems we share the same passion. You have a feeling for the complex net of relations between all objects in the world. I agree, the space is not empty: it is full of interactions (in form of radiation etc.).

The physics should never depend on a coordinate system but the choice of one is important to make a measurement (a precondition of the measurement process). I have the feeling that quantum mechanics is also connected with this circle of problems.

For more comments I have to read the essay again (which I will do). I like the style as play (a kind of drama?).

Best Torsten

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 19:13 GMT

Raman scattering is of course a quantum mechanism, deriving classical effects once understood, interpreted and applied correctly. Thanks for your response. We also seem to agree that forgetting to choose an observer reference frame is a cause of much of the confusion in physics.

I hope you will read it again as apparently it does need at least two reads to fully penetrate and assimilate, and I look forward to your further comments or questions. A major fundamental new understanding and advance towards unification should emerge. Do let me know if it doesn't!

Best wishes


Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 13:28 GMT
Dear Peter,

Apologies for this delay in replying. I readily agree with the hypothesis that space is `not empty’. In considering space as an emergent feature which derives from underlying physics, this definitely becomes apparent.

However, I could not understand your remark on my page that Continuous Spontaneous Localization emerges from your ideas. I could not figure out from your essay how that is happening.

I understand from your essay that you accept special relativity. Given this, ideas such as `change of speed of light on arrival’ are very hard for me to comprehend. Having grown up as a conventional physicist, I have, like other physicists, got habituated to seeing new ideas implemented through a mathematical formalism and equations. You have a more intuitive way of looking at things, which makes it hard for me to follow many things you say. But I do like your poetic and enthusiastic expression.

I am afraid I do not have anything more useful to say, at the moment.

Best regards,


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 19:52 GMT

Thank you. I see Continuous Spontaneous Localization in inertial frame terms. It is then implemented by the mechanism of absorption of incoming waves approaching an electron or proton at relative c+v, but re-emission at the new local c of the particle. This was first found by Chandraseckara Raman in 1921 in the work leading to his 1930 Nobel Prize.

If n particles are at...

view entire post

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 12:35 GMT

You wrote: "There is a remarkable difference between the Doppler effect in sound waves and the Doppler effect in light waves. For light waves there is no preferred frame of reference, no material "medium" in which the waves travel... One consequence is that, unlike a sound wave, the speed of a light wave is the same to all receivers regardless of their velocities. The details are left to a careful derivation elsewhere. (SR). "

There is no such consequence, Peter. The assumption that there is no preferred frame of reference, true or false, does not entail that "the speed of a light wave is the same to all receivers regardless of their velocities". Why do you adopt and teach the thoughtless "logic" you find in relativistic texts?

Pentcho Valev

Anonymous replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 17:12 GMT

When I write; "The common error is here;" with a semi colon followed by the text and a link address which you repeat above, it means that the 'mistake' I identify is embodied in that text.

So you are in fact agreeing with me. Which is good. However, the finer points of the cause of the mistake are not entirely agreed. We agree the speed of an approaching light wave can be relative c+v.

The difference is that you stop there, and suggest that alone is enough to convince the troglodyte armies to renounce their god, repent and lay down their arms.

I on the other hand suggest there is also a fundamental quantum reason that we always find local c as a maximum speed (c=dt), giving rise to the great paradox of the 19th century that SR set about logically resolving (and failed).

My suggestion also closes the chasm between Galilean Relativity and Quantum Physics, and resolves the paradoxes and anomalies referred in my essay.

My logic purely explains how both sound and light in Concord travel at c with respect to the rest frame inside Concord (whichever way it's heading). No other explanation can do this. But the key is in understanding what happens to the light from the headlight of the other Concord approaching ours also at Mach 2, when it enters through the cockpit windows. And WHY we then find it does c in the cabin wrt the cabin (so very blue shifted).

My consistent working model says the glass and air re-emit the em waves at c. (see also my bus analogy #15 on Eckard's string if needed).

It seems you agree this, as you must, but say it's not important. I propose that as it is what we find it IS important that it be explained, thus finally allowing SR to fade into the sunset and physics to progress once more.

Why would you wish to keep discouraging this?


Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 19:51 GMT

You wrote: "We agree the speed of an approaching light wave can be relative c+v. The difference is that you stop there, and suggest that alone is enough to convince the troglodyte armies to renounce their god, repent and lay down their arms. I on the other hand suggest there is also a fundamental quantum reason that we always find local c as a maximum speed..."

This "we always find local c as a maximum speed" is mysterious. I have never found anything like that. Nobody whom I know has. Who are *we*? Aliens?

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 11:04 GMT

I venture you suggesting dt=c+v would be 'alien' to most. Just the suggestion of it for neutrino's caused major panics. Universal dt=

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 17:36 GMT

It seems I used the 'up to' symbol, wiping out 90% of my above post!

I think I discussed how 'alien' it is to most to conceive anything OTHER than dt=max c, or the max c (or c/n) always found locally within propagating media when using the standard universal assumption of frequency and wavelength being inversely proportional. How you think you stand a chance of convincing anyone of propagation at C+ you'd have to explain!

I agree the current assumptions are wrong. You then propose different assumptions, but they are LESS acceptable (right or wrong) and anyway also not consistent. This includes with optics, (try it on KRR!) and as an astronomer I've studied everything possible on the subject and found local c=dt to first order about the ONLY absolutely undeniable thing there is (i.e. binary star light absolutey does arrive together irrespective of emitter motion). Also your assumptions don't actually really resolve anything and just adds to problems. There are dozens of anomalies and paradoxes out there. Can you give me a list of which it resolves?

OK, so I have found a slightly different set of assumptions. I've shown that mine ARE consistent with logic and all observation, and that they CAN resolve all the anomalies. What else could it do? So the only remaining problem is to persuade people to abandon deeply held assumptions.

The question then is, who will manage this first, mainstream or Pentcho?

Unless of course anyone can find anything apart from belief and assumption to falsify it with. So far not one. I almost wish they could as I could go sailing. Can you?

Best wishes.


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 20:58 GMT

I propose no assumptions. I am only referring to Doppler effect for sound waves:

"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

Then I am referring to the straightforward analogy between Doppler sound and Doppler light which is often implicit for obvious reasons: writing c'=c+v for light waves may prove suicidal for the author. So please comment on the above analysis of the Doppler effect:

1. Is it correct?

2. Is it equally valid for light waves?

If your answer is double yes we can close the discussion - thank you and good luck in the contest.

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 08:09 GMT

No. Like most current science that's an incomplete understanding, so it is what's been leading us astray.

The new and more complete view may be;

1. All collections of matter forms a 'medium'.

2. All lenses or detectors are collections of matter.

3. The detector medium and approach medium are then in different states of motion.

4. Lambda IN one medium must then vary instantly on contact with the other.

5. Speed in one (c) would then vary to become a different speed in the other (c').

6. The relation c=fL is then consistent, as found, and with a complete new aspect of it's prime importance exposed. c+v is only 'relative', because the PLACES the propagations are in are physically separated and co-moving.

This solution gives the Doppler shift, (delta f & L) and also resolves all the paradoxes introduced by SR, and all anomalies in current interpretations of observation. It cannot be falsified by ANY evidence.

Your option is not indeed proposing any NEW assumptions, but it is relying on the old ones that are now, or will be, discredited. We may say this assumption is equivalent to saying "we can 'see' something without actually USING our eyes!!' Mine accepts that we need to actually USE our eyes to see.

Can you see the big difference?


Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 11:07 GMT

When the observer starts moving with speed v towards the source of sound waves, then, relative to him, the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, the speed of the waves from c to c'=c+v, and the wavelength remains unchanged (L'=L). This is discussed in elementary textbooks and is OBVIOUS.

Are the textbook formulas f'=(c+v)/L, c'=c+v and L'=L true, Peter? You should answer this question before proposing your "new and more complete view".

Pentcho Valev

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 12:29 GMT

No. Wavelength is NOT invariant on transformation. Any 'text book' that suggests that is perpetuating current inadequacies. in fact they do not do so, but only refer to the RELATIVE speed, without properly recognising that they are doing so.

It is a 'shorthand simplification' which hides the mistake all sensible minds in physics are searching for.

L'=L is only 'obvious' to those who can't be bothered to think and analyse carefully enough. Which I agree is most at present.

I have clearly answered your question. You have not yet falsified my proposition. Quoting old theory in an attempt to disprove it's better replacement is invalid. This is what relativists do, so you should not resort to it.

Why do you not accept or try to falsify the clear logic?

I suggest only your beliefs in your old ingrained viewpoint stand in your way.

If you test the more complete model in application I promise you will find it impeccable.


Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 17:34 GMT
Any discussion between sane people, no matter how heated, is based on elementary truths which are obvious and acceptable to both parties. That the motion of the observer cannot alter the wavelength is one of those truths, Peter.

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 07:02 GMT

I see you quite right. However, when Peter wrote "Wavelength is NOT invariant on transformation" he did not mean the actual wavelength but a transformed wavelength without specifying which transformation he referred to.

When Fred Dobbs, solicited an example, he gave Peter a last chance. Maybe, we are both wrong about Peter's idea?


Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 09:33 GMT

I agree, moving observers only change the wavelengths they interact with, they do not affect that in the surrounding frame.

What needs to be done, which is the new part, is to actually apply the finding, which you agreed, that there are two separate states; One before detection, one after. You use the common current assumption it is the one 'before' interaction that matters,...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 15:47 GMT
Predictions confirmed.

The Integral/Ibis (X to Gamma) findings have confirmed the basis of predictions made regarding AGN's, quasar jets, blue shift and polarity etc. both in last years essay, referred in this years, (Inc. end notes) and particularly here;

They are anyway of general interest. A short extract from todays ESA '1st decade' press release;...

view entire post

Fred Dobbs wrote on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 18:55 GMT
Congratulations Peter.

Few theoretical physicists get the satisfaction of having made correct predictions confirmed by experiment, especially predictions that standard theory does not make.

I think you should take full credit for your ideas. Could you quote the specific predictions from your vixra paper referenced above, explain how they match the new data, and how standard theory is not up to the job? This will help non-experts such as myself better understand and appreciate your work

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 11:55 GMT

Thanks. Most astronomical findings are unfortunately rather different to other experimentation, and interpretations also vary. I'd like to have predicted a precise 35.8344 'smarties' against the current 34.5 and IBIS constrained it to a range 35.75-35.9 but that's very rare. It's more about consistency of interpretations. It's easy to stick new patches on patches on patches every time...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 17:40 GMT

Two more predicted effects confirmed. Different sources but closely related. Surface electron scattering at photovoltaic cells as pair production /absorption and 'recombination', discussing 'surface plasmon' density oscillations, and admitting the near field effects are poorly understood.

Then also, today, an esa release of the 4 probe 'Cluster' findings from earth's bow shock, confirming the 'relative motion/coupling' effects between the shock (Earth centred) frame and Barycentric (and solar wind) frames discussed above.

The answers are staring us in the face once we, (as Einstein said), know what to look for. Unfortunately it seems indoctrination by to much inconsistent theory means most don't know what to look for. Is there a solution?


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 23:55 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

Asymmetric quantum foam of space-time with quantum fluctuations in proper time is causal for charge asymmetry and hierarchy problem, in that proper time emerges with the dynamics of point like particle in curved space-time by moving clock that implies quantum vacuua of void in particularity.

In Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, the tetrahedral-branes in holarchy is in analogy with quantum foam, in that time emerges with eigen-rotations of strings, formational as tetrahedral-branes. Eigen-rotational periods are in reference with reference time series in holarchy, in that moving clock at the peripheral end of eigen-rotational string-segment defines cyclic time. Though tetrahedral-branes also void, the cyclic time obviates gravitational collapse of eigen-rotational string-segments and thus the universe is eternal with no beginning of dimensionality from nothingness.

With best wishes


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 13:48 GMT

I recall reading your essay, and like your post I recognised almost all the words, but could glean no meaning from the way they were arranged. I did try to unravel them in my mind and found the odd phrase I could agree with, but still couldn't find any coherent reality. You'd need to start from the beginning, step by step, or give an axiomatic basis.

I didn't comment on your blog as I could find nothing intelligent to say about your essay, and don't just discuss mine on others blogs. It seems we may arrive at the similar fundamental conclusion of a matter recycling model, though I only refer to that in my end notes this year. However, I can't yet see at all how you arrive at a similar conclusion.

If you do read other essays I'd be happy to discuss how my model does so via it's underlying mechanistic basis. Perhaps any commonality may then be exposed.

Best wishes


doug wrote on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 15:31 GMT
A simple request.

My theory in some great part is based upon matter becoming spatial as it moves.

The simple balloon experiment. [cold balloon placed into a heated room expands] is part of my rationale.

To my knowledge, current theory (possibly going back to Maxwell) suggests the reason is that the particles move faster and with that additional momentum (p = mv)the particles...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 17:38 GMT

My previous 100% agreement with almost all of the theoretical basis of some relevant sections of the kinetic aspects your theory, still stands. I have however so far been a little disappointed not to have received the toffee apple.

If you'd like to read my ontology and can understand and assimilate the logic of any 3 of the 8 wrong assumptions identified, taking you to stage 1, you will be offered three balloons and a free imaginary roller coaster ride, which will continue infinitely until you call 'ARETTE'.

I believe you'll then find the consistency of that with reflection from moving mirrors, and with the surface magneto optic Kerr effect (SMOKE) when integrated with your CIG, to give the CIG-ARETTE effect. I look forward to your achieving that (you may ask as many questions as you wish). I hope to see you at the draw for the chance at stage 2. (If you get 4 of 8 first time round you go straight though).

Best of luck


doug replied on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 23:32 GMT
Hi Peter,

Can I let go of one balloon and watch it until it gets smaller and smaller until it nearly disappears into the big blue yonder. Then, when it is finally completely out of sight, can we decide whether it still exists? If we do not hear it pop, has the tree fallen?

It's nearly Haloween, and bobbing for tofee apples could get a bit sticky. I'm going to be a physicist this year....

I will try to understand every word. I want to go straight through.

THX for the reply - you're the best.

tweety tweat


doug wrote on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 11:44 GMT


Great article! We're not in Kansas anymore!

I'm going to keep re-reading it until I understand all of it. Understand that I'll have to stop from time to time to look up the words / concepts on WIKI.



Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 18:25 GMT

It'd be a first! My money's on max 4. But it does depend on how thoroughly your brain cells have been pre-programmed with nonsense.

I don't accept the concept that the balloon gets out of sight. It always stays in sight, but the limits of our capability to identify it from the clutter with the kit we've evolved are very low. My screen wallpaper is the Hubble extreme deep field image. It's 'in sight' each night, but I need the HST and my computer to discern it. The balloon in then always in sight.

(Except when it hides behind something or I turn away). But when we ALL turn away there IS no balloon any more as we know it, just a few more waves waiting to be collapsed into a balloon by some lens and brain.

Congratulations on deciding you're going to be a physicist. I'd have advised against it, but what do I know? Someone has to do it. (eventually). I just hope your brain doesn't get filled with all the wonderland mumbo jumbo, voodoo and technobabble that makes most fail (and beware of the Wiki witch!)

No-one had told me Coney Island was once in Kansas. It explains a lot.

Best of luck. Do report in.


doug replied on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 01:35 GMT
Hi Peter,

No no no... Not an actual physicist.

Only for Haloween.



Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 11:04 GMT

Sounds wise. As physics, like f and lambda is inverse (or something ...verse anyway) then it seems the only chance we get to escape the trickery and do it sensibly may be Haloween.

Over to you then!

Have you reached 4 yet? You are allowed to write them down and rehearse them.


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 17:08 GMT

I gather the Wiki page on emission theory has been improved, but it seems all the examples only disprove it. Perhaps you may post some others there to give it balance? Please update me on your refutations of the proofs of the list there;

You may recall the DFM supports emission theory locally (within the near field as far as the TZ) though that may be as short as nanometre scale for small masses (localisation).

Fresnel refraction becomes Fraunhofer beyond the TZ where Snell's Law is violated, because speed c is modulated to c' by re-emissions at the boundary.


Juan Miguel Marin wrote on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 22:49 GMT
Thanks for the last message. Indeed I'm missing some of them. And I found yours on Spam.

Anyways, I did took notes and asked some questions. Hope they are helpful.

I'm glad you recognized the philosophical assumptions behind seemingly "scientific" statements, like those around "vacuum." The ideas behind much science go back to Aristotelian science's dictum Nature abhors a vacuum." As you made me realize, they keep "popping up," or not, every now and then.

I wonder about one of your assumptions, falsifiability. What's your stake on Einstein's cosmological constant? From the little I know about the topic, it seems he plugged it in to avoid rejecting cherished assumptions about a static universe, then rejected it as a flaw, recognizing his "mistake." Supposedly some want it back. I believe in progress but not sure how to address this.

Did Einstein want to incorporate QM, or explain it away? I thought it was the latter. But I should go check,.

When you say "we forget reality," what do you mean? As in, reality is a sine qua non principle? or as in "we know" there's a reality out there? Is reality quantifiable, like Kant used to say, i.e more waves we can "add"?

As you predicted I did resonate and enjoy your conclusion. I think Riemann would have done so too. His system indeed is dynamical. As i interpret some of his notes, his space-time seems to have consisted of a curved surface/volume in correlation with particle/point/prime density. And as for Charles' Mad Hatter, some claim he may found in "Riemanniana" a place analogous to Wonderland!

Great essay, in all aspects: philosophical, scientifical and literary. Congratulations!

Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 14:56 GMT

Very kind, thanks. There are more implications than first appear, resolving many anomalies throughout science.

My take on the cosmological constant, expansion and redshift is that they seem to resolve as the resistance of dark matter and/or the dark energy field, plus a slowing expansion in the exact scaled up model of re-ionized quasar jet matter evolving into an open then...

view entire post

Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 10:50 GMT
Hi Peter,

Congrats for being among the finalists. I didn't manage to invest much time in the reading of essays but I'm impressed by yours. Best wishes for a prize.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 12:51 GMT

Thanks, damnit! with Juan's that's 2 high scores not added! But seriously, I value you view, thanks. I'm not concerned about prizes but to get across the kinetic concepts, which uncover what Sir Roger Penrose termed the 'Holy Grail of Physics'; Unification of Relativity with an underlying quantum mechanism. The model needs far better exposure and opportunity for explanation.

It's implications were too wide to jam any more in the essay, already dense to the point of going nova with the components of the ontology and kinetically explaining them. I think I jammed in too much, but any less would have left gaping gaps in the logical construction.

Did you also read my comments about quantum particles as part of 'fluid dynamic couplings' (used in auto gearboxes for torque conversion), implementing local c simply by re-emission at their own c. Is there any link with your work? It relates to surface plasmons (ion density fluctuations) and the shock dynamics of the link above (see also Rich Kingsley-Nixeys essay Fig 2.)

Any views, input or thoughts you have are most welcome.

Best wishes


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 13:15 GMT
doug, et al.

Brill new agreement with predictions of my model from NASA/ESA Cluster data. I'll try to find some free access links to these recent papers (or just Google) but doi's, abstracts etc. here;

Multipoint study of magnetosheath magnetic field fluctuations and their relation to the foreshock, J. Geophys. Res., 117, A04214, doi:10.1029/2011JA017240

Narita, Y., Multi-spacecraft measurements, in Plasma turbulence in the Solar System, SpringerBriefs in Physics, 39-65, 2012 and Impacts on related subjects, 87-100, 2012.

Servidio, S., F. Valentinio, F. Calfitano, P. Veltri, Local kinetic effects in two-dimensional plasma turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 045001, 2012

Wang S., Zong Q.-G., Zhang H., Cases and statistical study on Hot Flow Anomalies with Cluster spacecraft data, Sci. China Tech. Sci., 2012, 55, 1402-1418, doi: 10.1007/s11431-012-4767-z

Yuan, Z., Y. Xiong, Y. Pang, M. Zhou, X. Deng, J.-G. Trotignon, E. Lucek, and J. Wang (2012), Wave-particle interaction in a plasmaspheric plume observed by a Cluster satellite, J. Geophys. Res., 117, A03205, doi:10.1029/2011JA017152 also 117, A08324, doi:10.1029/2012JA017783.

The implications of the verifications are fundamental. I've also just found one from last year reporting the findings of the significant ion population well beyond Earth's bow shock;

André, M., Cully, C.M., Low-energy ions: A previously hidden solar system particle population, Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 39, No. 3, L03101,

How did your venture into theoretical physics on 31st go? And have you assimilated the required 4 of the 8 concepts in the essay yet? The model is beyond 'proven true' for a Hawking 'model dependent theory', nice trick, but it seems it may also reach the higher falsification standard, a real treat!. Unless you've found where it went wrong, so I can get back to the golf!?

Best wishes


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 15:37 GMT

1st order results are useful, but I'm suggesting that to really understand nature we need to understand the underlying quantum mechanism, which may only be apparent at 3rd order ('bottom up' logic).

Let's consider your proposition more closely. We make 'all round' emitters for em signals, but even then they are different photons, intervening conditions differ, and certainly...

view entire post

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 17:44 GMT
Hi Peter,

"Let's consider your proposition more closely. We make 'all round' emitters for em signals, but even then they are different photons, intervening conditions differ, and certainly distance and flight times differ. Light is far more varied. Of 80,000 in a stadium no two will have precisely the same view of the tackle so receive identical photons, and even then their lenses differ. Trivial in itself I agree, but no less true. And I'm saying I've found that thinking in that very new way (like Earth orbiting the sun), can shed new light on a very important hidden aspect of nature."

I'm sticking by Einstein's definition of a "physically real" phenomena, which includes the caveat " ... having a physical effect ... but not itself affected by physical conditions."

A relativistic model allows us to reconcile observer differences to a uniform spacetime -- and classical Newtonian optics explains by corrections in parallax, refraction or other effects of light behavior, differences in observer perceptions.

The rest, I frankly don't understand. What I do understand, detailed above, argues for a unitary reality, i.e., objective physics independent of physical conditions.


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 7, 2012 @ 12:25 GMT

"I frankly don't understand." The model agrees a 'unitary reality', but simply also recognises that if the camera has a red filter, or is in motion, we have to subtract those effects to find what it is. Therefore 'observed' realities are only 'apparent' as they may differ. I can't believe you don't agree with that because it is the 'reconcile'you refer to.

The only question...

view entire post

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 17:56 GMT
Hi Peter,

"It is simply Raman atomic scattering, by the particles of local 'inertial systems' at c in the system frame. Relative 'approach' speed may be whatever we wish (resolving any issue with two masses approaching, both at 0.6c) but the instant any interaction takes place the speed is modulated to local c wrt that system. This gives an effect identical the 'Local Reality' Einstein...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 18:54 GMT

What is "at rest relative to the object??" and if the observer is in the same frame (state of motion) why do not all objects we're 'at rest with' contract?!

I agree with your characterisation of AE's view and all your preamble up to that point, when you found you needed a background rest frame.

What if the 2nd rocket doing 0.6c did not exist? Without a background frame the 1st rocket is at rest in an inertial frame equivalent to the nearby planet! Yes.?

What I am showing is that such local background frames are indeed logically allowable without breaching the SR postulates, i.e. CSL. Yes, it is unfamiliar, therefore will appear to be new physics. it really isn't it's just better, and more consistent, understanding of old nature.

If a detector is not there at all, there can be no detection agreed? Put one there, and lambda changes the instant f does. Yes? Does no c = d/t?

The plasmasphere and atmosphere themselves interact so are 'detectors' which modulate c to the local frame of the inertial system of the planet. The more energy a particle has the longer it takes to be absorbed. All matter represents a medium, thus an inertial system. Can you really falsify any of that?


Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 19:35 GMT
" ...when you found you needed a background rest frame."

I don't need a background rest frame. Relative rest means that if you and I, say, are both traveling uniformly beside each other at 60 kph, we are at rest relative to each other. If you accelerate to 70 kph, and my speed does not change, I am at rest relative to your accelerated frame.

"If a detector is not there at all, there can be no detection agreed?"

Sure, that falls into the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there ..." category, philosophically. However, there are never "no detector present" conditions in a universe containing more than one particle, however.

"Put one there, and lambda changes the instant f does. Yes? Does no c = d/t?"

No. The constant c is set to unity for nonrelativistic events. Sounds to me like you're trying to quantize the speed of light -- from the POV of the photon's constant state of motion, however, no time exists at all.


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 13:43 GMT

Though Dodgson showed we can't escape the circular tea party, just for good measure I'll point out the remaining paradox. You said in the case of; "...masses uniformly travelling at 0.6c, the relativity high speed causes a contraction of the mass according to an observer at rest relative to the object."

Now unless you meant at rest with respect to (so in the same frame as) the object, which of course you could not, then you have assumed some rest frame. Let's say it was a semantic error, and you meant an observer travelling at 0.6c wrt the object. You have just now caused a Lorentz violation as the other object, travelling in the other direction at 0.6c wrt you, is still then 'closing' with the first at relative 1.2c! Whatever is 'seen' by either, the real closing speed in terms of c = d/t is 1.2c.

What I am saying is that the problem IS resolvable using truth function logic, and with the quantum vacuum (Higgs field if you prefer) having an assignable 'state of motion' (background frame). CSL as continuous spontaneous localisation then derives the other CSL directly. The hidden assumption of a background frame was only hidden by smoke and mirrors and keeps moving round, but it's quite well recognised logically by many very credible analysts;

The sad part is that rigid adhereance is not only not required but was not sought by Einstein, who always insisted 'space without ether is unthinkable'. But in fact it doesn't need ether at all, just the quantum vacuum frame, and also helps prove Joy's thesis ref Bell.

Falsification is by pure logic, simple maths, and a massive weight of evidence, much of which I've cited. Still all run away from logic and data back to rigid bodies shrinking. That is what I mean by crimestop. I'm disappointed you are affected. Can you logically falsify the relative 1.2c case above in d/t tems?


Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 16:48 GMT
"Now unless you meant at rest with respect to (so in the same frame as) the object, which of course you could not, then you have assumed some rest frame."

Peter, are you saying that if we two are traveling beside one another at 60 kph, that we are not at relative rest?


Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 9, 2012 @ 18:16 GMT

Okay, I think I have managed to unpack your meaning now. You write: "Let's say it was a semantic error (it wasn't ~ me), and you meant an observer travelling at 0.6c wrt the object. You have just now caused a Lorentz violation as the other object, travelling in the other direction at 0.6c wrt you, is still then 'closing' with the first at relative 1.2c! Whatever is 'seen' by either, the real closing speed in terms of c = d/t is 1.2c."

No, it isn't. You have made the error of assuming a privileged observer frame. From the point of view of either object (i.e., there is no objective third observer, as you imply), each one sees the other as contracted. Both of these findings are physically valid -- Lorentz transformation will find that each is contracted by the correct amount so as not to violate the relativistic speed limit.

"I'm disappointed you are affected. Can you logically falsify the relative 1.2c case above in d/t tems?"

I already did, previously. Normalization of the constant is explained by Lorentz contraction. Remember the case of the long-lived cosmic ray particle -- its extended life is equivalent to a spatial extension at the point where we, at rest relative to the particle, observe decay and calculate backward; the foreshortened life of an identical particle as compared to its longer lived twin is equivalent to a contraction, from the point of view of the longer lived twin. Comparing this case to your particles approaching each other at 0.6c, each sees the other as living a fraction of a bit longer than itself, and both these judgments are physically valid in their own frames. There is no privileged third frame.


Author Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 10, 2012 @ 14:19 GMT

I agree. That's precisely what we assume SR means, which I'm suggesting is not the only possible interpretation. The alternative recognises Einstein's 1952 analysis, and he and Minkowski's 'Proper Time' and the converse; co-ordinate time and undetectable ('imaginary') c+v (1908).

Consider carefully what you just wrote; "there is no objective third observer." I agree....

view entire post

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 16:13 GMT
Dear Peter,

Looking at your paper again, a couple of questions come to mind.

1. What do you think about the "123 orders of magnitude problem" involving the cosmological constant?

2. When you discuss the fact that only a small percentage of the known universe is conventionally thought to be ordinary matter, are you suggesting that dark energy can be explained in terms of already-known properties of the "medium?" if not, how does dark energy fit into your view?

3. What do you think about the Unruh effect and the implications for arbitrary boosts and absolute frames?

4. I am not sure where your viewpoint leaves the Poincare group. It's one thing to posit that "relativistic" observations can be explained by the local nature of observation, but that is not the only way in which the idea of the equal status of all frame of a certain type contributes... it also underlies the derivations in standard QFT, which work up to a high level of precision.

Take care,


Author Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 19:01 GMT

Q 1 & 2 have the same answer. Dark Energy would provide the 'cosmological constant' (CC), and redshift is not directly or mainly related to CC but to propagation loss. I identify a number of cases of two effects mistaken for one in the essay. This is probably another case, as the recession of emitters does of course also give redshift.

For the complete picture it seems you'd...

view entire post