Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
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
FQXi FORUM
February 9, 2012
I have often wondered if the vacuum between the local Star our Sun and Earth, is of the same density as the vacuum between a Proton and its nearest Electron?
When photons travel from the Sun to here, there is nothing apart from Protons (proton flux/free elecrtons) in the intermedieate space. From the Electron to the Proton in atomic structure, there is a small vacuum. The photon travels at a constant speed relative to the Sun_space-vacuum_Earth, and the Electron_vacuum_ Proton.
Or does it?..from Galaxy to Galaxy there is also vacuum void, but due to the Expansion rate, the void appears to be filled with an anti_graviton/anti_proton flux, quark soup? Any matter that transports across this void would interact as if it was an aether, the MM experiment is only valid local, by this I mean internal to our Galaxy?
some things fit ?
Some wave lengths would not fit in our galaxy ?
report post as inappropriate
When photons travel from the Sun to here, there is nothing apart from Protons (proton flux/free elecrtons) in the intermedieate space. From the Electron to the Proton in atomic structure, there is a small vacuum. The photon travels at a constant speed relative to the Sun_space-vacuum_Earth, and the Electron_vacuum_ Proton.
Or does it?..from Galaxy to Galaxy there is also vacuum void, but due to the Expansion rate, the void appears to be filled with an anti_graviton/anti_proton flux, quark soup? Any matter that transports across this void would interact as if it was an aether, the MM experiment is only valid local, by this I mean internal to our Galaxy?
some things fit ?
Some wave lengths would not fit in our galaxy ?
report post as inappropriate
Following:
This "flexible/fluid" - "Rest Frame" could form these too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Networ
k
Maybe time behaves like a fluid too. And those gravitationally determined pathways through space, stretch the time-fluid.
report post as inappropriate
This "flexible/fluid" - "Rest Frame" could form these too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Networ
k
Maybe time behaves like a fluid too. And those gravitationally determined pathways through space, stretch the time-fluid.
report post as inappropriate
Time is a human abstraction, It is a comparison of physical phenomeon in motion; we know it not by any other means.
If we take a pendulam clock to Jupiter the pendulan will fall faster and the hands of the clock will go around faster. Can you say that time goes faster? No one can only say that the gravitational forces that effect the mechanics of the clock make the workings of the clock go faster.
If we take an atomic clock to Jupiter can we say that time goes slower? No, we can only say that the mechanics of the clock are effected by the Physical reality of Jupiter; by the denser electromagnetic fields that permeate everything and as such slow down the workings of the atomic clock.
If one uses Lorenz's model, but asume the ether is the electrmagnetic fields that extend from all partical masses, one can explain all relativistic and Quantum Mechanical phenomena.
report post as inappropriate
If we take a pendulam clock to Jupiter the pendulan will fall faster and the hands of the clock will go around faster. Can you say that time goes faster? No one can only say that the gravitational forces that effect the mechanics of the clock make the workings of the clock go faster.
If we take an atomic clock to Jupiter can we say that time goes slower? No, we can only say that the mechanics of the clock are effected by the Physical reality of Jupiter; by the denser electromagnetic fields that permeate everything and as such slow down the workings of the atomic clock.
If one uses Lorenz's model, but asume the ether is the electrmagnetic fields that extend from all partical masses, one can explain all relativistic and Quantum Mechanical phenomena.
report post as inappropriate
Like most time deniers, Phil, you are confusing things. Let me cut to the chase - if time didn't exist you wouldn't be here. None of us would because time is part of space and and without it you don't have events. No events, then you don't even have space because the creation of this space, that we call the universe, was an event.
So everything that you can think of - clock hands spinning, atoms moving in atomic clocks or even the strength of an electromagnetic field - is an event. Time might be malleable, and perhaps even transversable, but in the end it is inescapable and there's nothing that anyone can posit that changes that.
That said, I think that Petr Horava may be on to something and I plan on reading his papers further to learn more of what his theory is.
Oh, and your comment that assuming the ether is the EMFs extending extending from all partical masses will explain all QM and relativistic phenomena requires supporting data because I can think of quite a number of both QM and relativistic phenomena that fly in the face of that idea...
report post as inappropriate
So everything that you can think of - clock hands spinning, atoms moving in atomic clocks or even the strength of an electromagnetic field - is an event. Time might be malleable, and perhaps even transversable, but in the end it is inescapable and there's nothing that anyone can posit that changes that.
That said, I think that Petr Horava may be on to something and I plan on reading his papers further to learn more of what his theory is.
Oh, and your comment that assuming the ether is the EMFs extending extending from all partical masses will explain all QM and relativistic phenomena requires supporting data because I can think of quite a number of both QM and relativistic phenomena that fly in the face of that idea...
report post as inappropriate
The MM experiment and its conclusion were/are misplaced . Aether does exist. The MM experiment supposed that the aether would generate a 'wind' across the surface of the earth as the earth moved through it. The aether isn't static like static air. Aether moves toward mass. The MM experiment could never detect the aether 'wind' because the MM experiment looked in the wrong direction...the MM experiment always looked for aether as if it were moving across the surface of the earth. It doesn't move that way, so it can't be detected that way. It moves toward mass...it moves toward the center of mass. Aether flow is what we call gravity. The Mossbauer experiments show this. Aether movement toward mass is gravity.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Miker,
Right. That being the case, the aether is not differentiable from the vacuum. Just as Einstein had it -- a superfluous concept.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Right. That being the case, the aether is not differentiable from the vacuum. Just as Einstein had it -- a superfluous concept.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Dear Miker,
The aether exists but don't interact physically speaking, the codes of informations inside the main central spheres of gravity which rotate, them are the causes of the physicality , the aether interacts thus , paradoxal, no because it is by codes of becoming.
There you can encircle thus the difference between the infinity and the finite sphere in evolution towards the perfect harmony between cosmological spheres.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
The aether exists but don't interact physically speaking, the codes of informations inside the main central spheres of gravity which rotate, them are the causes of the physicality , the aether interacts thus , paradoxal, no because it is by codes of becoming.
There you can encircle thus the difference between the infinity and the finite sphere in evolution towards the perfect harmony between cosmological spheres.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
The aether, at least in the 19th century context, shifts itself in a way which makes it indiestinguishable from a spacetime vacuum. There is a sort of vacuum problem with quantum field theory and the cosmological constant. This paper by Petr's paper is most interesting from the perspective of what questions this raises. It is curiously similar in a way to the pre-Lorentzian notion of the aether with no spacetime symmetry, where Petr's theory involves a broken Lorentz symmetry. This seems to raise an interesting question than it does to advance a solution.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
I have Petr's paper, but I will confess I had not gotten around to reading. His papers back in 2004-6, where he proposes a K-theoretic approach to Dp-brane theory I read repeatedly. In this work Petr illustrates how solid state (like) physics with Fermi surfaces have homotopy and K-theoretic quantum numbers. I suppose I will try to read in the near future Petr's paper Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point in the near future.
I will register some disappointment with this however. I have indicated here and elsewhere that general relativity and quantum mechanics have different notions of time. Relativity defines an invariant time according to proper time or an invariant interval, while quantum field theory imposes wave equations on spatial surfaces with a local arrow of time. This is a coordinate condition required to specify the initial data for a QFT wave equation, where the associated time is not an invariant, but is fixed by a freely chosen gauge-like condition. So there are two notions of time that are not compatible. I have thought in the spirit of Hegel there must exist a dialectic of two opposites or dualities which define a consistent whole. In its basic conceptual framework the notion of breaking Lorentz symmetry seems not to fit this bill.
In a condensed matter physics analogue the lattice has to be treated according to some group structure. Bloch waves then have a periodicity determined by this symmetry, such as a space groups or crystallographic symmetry, and in lattice gauge theory there are Mantin actions with similar properties. Yet this lattice and its symmetries might in be a gauge-like or coordinate condition. If so then the space group is a subgroup of a more general symmetry. It appears that Petr is saying the lattice symmetry if “fixed,” using the solid state analogue. I think that the lattice structure determines connection terms, where in an elliptic complex one must take “connections modulo group actions,” so for connection in Λ^1(M) there is a sequence
Λ^1(M) -- > Λ^1(M)/G --d-->Λ^2(M)
The action will then be appropriate for a Polyakov path integral formulation, and we might then avoid what seems to be a hurtful violation of spacetime symmetry.
Cheers LC
\
report post as inappropriate
I will register some disappointment with this however. I have indicated here and elsewhere that general relativity and quantum mechanics have different notions of time. Relativity defines an invariant time according to proper time or an invariant interval, while quantum field theory imposes wave equations on spatial surfaces with a local arrow of time. This is a coordinate condition required to specify the initial data for a QFT wave equation, where the associated time is not an invariant, but is fixed by a freely chosen gauge-like condition. So there are two notions of time that are not compatible. I have thought in the spirit of Hegel there must exist a dialectic of two opposites or dualities which define a consistent whole. In its basic conceptual framework the notion of breaking Lorentz symmetry seems not to fit this bill.
In a condensed matter physics analogue the lattice has to be treated according to some group structure. Bloch waves then have a periodicity determined by this symmetry, such as a space groups or crystallographic symmetry, and in lattice gauge theory there are Mantin actions with similar properties. Yet this lattice and its symmetries might in be a gauge-like or coordinate condition. If so then the space group is a subgroup of a more general symmetry. It appears that Petr is saying the lattice symmetry if “fixed,” using the solid state analogue. I think that the lattice structure determines connection terms, where in an elliptic complex one must take “connections modulo group actions,” so for connection in Λ^1(M) there is a sequence
Λ^1(M) -- > Λ^1(M)/G --d-->Λ^2(M)
The action will then be appropriate for a Polyakov path integral formulation, and we might then avoid what seems to be a hurtful violation of spacetime symmetry.
Cheers LC
\
report post as inappropriate
Time is what the clock measure. put synchronized clocks one on the top of the tower and one at the foot of the tower after a while put the two clocks one next to other and compare it's time.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
What a lovely breath of fresh air this site can be sometimes!
Good marks to Paul and Miker, and the M&Mx did not invalidate the 'dragged' ether (but NOT 'all pervasive') that Sagnac supported as well as so much else;
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:YQp037P-VIgJ:scholar.g
oogle.com/+stellar+aberration+anomaly&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites
But all does rather demonstrate the degree of flow as very negligible Miker, and not 'inward'.
And Paul, you say perhaps "The photon travels at a constant speed relative to the Sun_space-vacuum_Earth, and the Electron_vacuum_ Proton." ..but MM is only locally valid, within our galaxy.
Petr's paper is massively contortional but has to be politically as he's telling string theorists there is an ether, so the reported malaise with SR is true. I sense the long due paradigm change, but the catalyst is still hidden.
So Paul, how can the photon pass the sun at 'c' wrt the sun heading for us, which we know it does as Shapiro and many others have checked, then meet our planet doing 1,000k round the sun and also be found doing 'c' here!? Let's take a simple 'reality' view and ask if it changes speed.
So if it did where would it do it? Obviously at the point it doppler shifts! So let's check where that is with radio signals from spacecreft. We find it's at the planetary shock. The anomalous region of dense oscillating particle activity, the standing 'bow wave' that aligns with the planets orbital vector despite what we're still teaching at Uni and the lateral battering from SMP's.
Petr may be close to the truth. Einstein may have been closer in his battle with Bohr in the name of Reality. He tried to close the gap, but perhaps should have looked the other way, even further towards reality;
A model of Discrete Fields (the 'DFM') based on his '52; space is actually "infinately many 'spaces' in relative motion", but with real regions of ether surrounding all collections of mass, in relative motion, with particle 'shock' boundaries. And 'c' is constant locally within each, because it changes speed and wavelength at the shocks to be so?
And yes Lawrence, all arrows of time, and space, would be local to all mass, from a single electron and it's shock cloud, proportional to velocity (so much for equivalence and contraction) upwards to galaxy clusters. - And yes Paul, and matter crossing the void would interacts with the ether. And all using the postulates of SR. - A catalyst?? - Or perhaps it's all too real?
Paper 3; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010
No new math is required for now. Please check if you can and give me any views.
Many thanks
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Good marks to Paul and Miker, and the M&Mx did not invalidate the 'dragged' ether (but NOT 'all pervasive') that Sagnac supported as well as so much else;
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:YQp037P-VIgJ:scholar.g
oogle.com/+stellar+aberration+anomaly&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites
But all does rather demonstrate the degree of flow as very negligible Miker, and not 'inward'.
And Paul, you say perhaps "The photon travels at a constant speed relative to the Sun_space-vacuum_Earth, and the Electron_vacuum_ Proton." ..but MM is only locally valid, within our galaxy.
Petr's paper is massively contortional but has to be politically as he's telling string theorists there is an ether, so the reported malaise with SR is true. I sense the long due paradigm change, but the catalyst is still hidden.
So Paul, how can the photon pass the sun at 'c' wrt the sun heading for us, which we know it does as Shapiro and many others have checked, then meet our planet doing 1,000k round the sun and also be found doing 'c' here!? Let's take a simple 'reality' view and ask if it changes speed.
So if it did where would it do it? Obviously at the point it doppler shifts! So let's check where that is with radio signals from spacecreft. We find it's at the planetary shock. The anomalous region of dense oscillating particle activity, the standing 'bow wave' that aligns with the planets orbital vector despite what we're still teaching at Uni and the lateral battering from SMP's.
Petr may be close to the truth. Einstein may have been closer in his battle with Bohr in the name of Reality. He tried to close the gap, but perhaps should have looked the other way, even further towards reality;
A model of Discrete Fields (the 'DFM') based on his '52; space is actually "infinately many 'spaces' in relative motion", but with real regions of ether surrounding all collections of mass, in relative motion, with particle 'shock' boundaries. And 'c' is constant locally within each, because it changes speed and wavelength at the shocks to be so?
And yes Lawrence, all arrows of time, and space, would be local to all mass, from a single electron and it's shock cloud, proportional to velocity (so much for equivalence and contraction) upwards to galaxy clusters. - And yes Paul, and matter crossing the void would interacts with the ether. And all using the postulates of SR. - A catalyst?? - Or perhaps it's all too real?
Paper 3; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010
No new math is required for now. Please check if you can and give me any views.
Many thanks
Peter
report post as inappropriate
I think some people have a bit of confusion here. This putative aether is different from the aether of pre-Einstein physics. This aether is more of a quantum effect or quantum field effect.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Yes, and a big part of Jacobson's work [along with certain collaborators...] is to look for aether-ish theories that pass current observational tests without having to invoke new interpretation of the data or potentially overlooked subtleties in the experiment.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Hi Lawrence
No confusion here. I agree entirely - It's currently proposed with no link to physical reality. My post suggests an option WITH one.
But it still is a 'quantum field effect', or to be precise, a quantum field, with effects. Re read in that vein and it should become clearer.
EINSTEIN LENSING
The question is asked in the article; can any model explain it. Yes indeed.
The anomaly is that Shapiro 'curved light track' delays, even with some gravitational dilation added, predict relative delays orders of magnitude lower than observed (spectroscopy). As this is also the only way galactic mass can be estimated some galaxies come out ridiculously solid!
A while ago delays of over 2 years were found! and, while we were fumbling around for a solution to that one, another of 3 years has just been confirmed!! This meets no current astrological model.
The DFM predicted exactly this (and predicts more) over a year ago! Feynman was right, 'Nature will always find a simpler way than man can imagine'. I posed the question to my 8yr old nephew recently, ..he got it right. Can any physicists out there in cyberspace shed preconception, stand back, think so simply and and see reality so clearly?
Have a try; Q; Light going through an intervening galaxy that's moving away from us arrives after light lensed round the outside. Why?
Best of luck. Peter
report post as inappropriate
No confusion here. I agree entirely - It's currently proposed with no link to physical reality. My post suggests an option WITH one.
But it still is a 'quantum field effect', or to be precise, a quantum field, with effects. Re read in that vein and it should become clearer.
EINSTEIN LENSING
The question is asked in the article; can any model explain it. Yes indeed.
The anomaly is that Shapiro 'curved light track' delays, even with some gravitational dilation added, predict relative delays orders of magnitude lower than observed (spectroscopy). As this is also the only way galactic mass can be estimated some galaxies come out ridiculously solid!
A while ago delays of over 2 years were found! and, while we were fumbling around for a solution to that one, another of 3 years has just been confirmed!! This meets no current astrological model.
The DFM predicted exactly this (and predicts more) over a year ago! Feynman was right, 'Nature will always find a simpler way than man can imagine'. I posed the question to my 8yr old nephew recently, ..he got it right. Can any physicists out there in cyberspace shed preconception, stand back, think so simply and and see reality so clearly?
Have a try; Q; Light going through an intervening galaxy that's moving away from us arrives after light lensed round the outside. Why?
Best of luck. Peter
report post as inappropriate
Einstein lensing requires no aether theory. For a pretty complete discussion on Gravitational Lensing from a Spacetime Perspective, this should suffice.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence
Seems you may not have read it, it's not complete at all as it doesn't address the anomalous temporal magnitude. But it's not alone, in fact no-one sucessfully has. OK, back then I think the max delay was little over a year. Seriously anomalous, but nothing like as serious as the ones found since.
Most astronomers have been reticent to make themselves look foolish by even mentiong it let alone making a big deal of it! Interestingly it took probably our best female astrophysicist Evalyn Gates to break ranks and be honest in public;
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009
/07/13/guest-post-evalyn-gates-cosmic-magnification.
Of course we could stay head in the sand about it, but the sand's pretty busy with older mainsteam trogladites these days!
Occams razor, like Feynman, is correct, there is a simple solution. It's the same one that predicted the unexplaned quadrupolar assymmetry on the ecliptic polar from WMAP. Whether or not anyone will even look let alone recognise is a quite different question.!
(This signal is part of the search for intellegent life in the solar system).
Peter
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Seems you may not have read it, it's not complete at all as it doesn't address the anomalous temporal magnitude. But it's not alone, in fact no-one sucessfully has. OK, back then I think the max delay was little over a year. Seriously anomalous, but nothing like as serious as the ones found since.
Most astronomers have been reticent to make themselves look foolish by even mentiong it let alone making a big deal of it! Interestingly it took probably our best female astrophysicist Evalyn Gates to break ranks and be honest in public;
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009
/07/13/guest-post-evalyn-gates-cosmic-magnification.
Of course we could stay head in the sand about it, but the sand's pretty busy with older mainsteam trogladites these days!
Occams razor, like Feynman, is correct, there is a simple solution. It's the same one that predicted the unexplaned quadrupolar assymmetry on the ecliptic polar from WMAP. Whether or not anyone will even look let alone recognise is a quite different question.!
(This signal is part of the search for intellegent life in the solar system).
Peter
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
This anomalous time problem is not a problem. Photons from a source will arc around an interposed gravity well with different proper distances. This fact is being used to calibrate the cosmological expansion.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Aether ....gravity mass or light constant.....the ideas of Stokes are interestings about the motion and the immobility of the light.
Thus the physical system is dynamic and the other is a infinite light above the physical laws.
Thus the time permits to the mass to polarise the flux of light inside this system.
Thus the special relativity in the physicality takes all its sense, and the aether behind is thus different.One is infinite, the other finite and in building.The aether don't interact in the physicality because the codes are there in the gravity since the begining, the rotations become essentials for the motion and the mass.
It is a spiritual and universal interpretation limited due to our physicality, indeed we are mass inside this system.....
To understand the physicality, it is to understand the aim of this infinite light of love.We are catalyzers , builders, creators,of the harmony, this aim between spheres.All is the same, light but with different rotating spheres which imply the specificity and the rule in time constant inside a 3D.
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Thus the physical system is dynamic and the other is a infinite light above the physical laws.
Thus the time permits to the mass to polarise the flux of light inside this system.
Thus the special relativity in the physicality takes all its sense, and the aether behind is thus different.One is infinite, the other finite and in building.The aether don't interact in the physicality because the codes are there in the gravity since the begining, the rotations become essentials for the motion and the mass.
It is a spiritual and universal interpretation limited due to our physicality, indeed we are mass inside this system.....
To understand the physicality, it is to understand the aim of this infinite light of love.We are catalyzers , builders, creators,of the harmony, this aim between spheres.All is the same, light but with different rotating spheres which imply the specificity and the rule in time constant inside a 3D.
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Peter,
Could it be that the light lensing around the galaxies is speeding up, as well as the light going through them is slowing down? Wouldn't that balance the effect out?
Might this also be the source of redshift?
report post as inappropriate
Could it be that the light lensing around the galaxies is speeding up, as well as the light going through them is slowing down? Wouldn't that balance the effect out?
Might this also be the source of redshift?
report post as inappropriate
This problem does not exist! I am not sure why you are claiming this. The distances and focal lengths are on the order of up to several billions of light years. A delay of a year or so along one path over the other means a difference between the two proper distances of 1-2 light years over a total distance of billions of light years. This is not a huge difference, and is why these differences in paths is seen with tiny (sec)^2 steradians of solid angle of view. The light from the distant object lensed does not pass close to any central black hole, and two light paths are slightly bent by this curvature.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence,
Not to dwell on the point, but these differences are all between light that did succeed in passing these gravity wells, not what is falling into them, which would have been slowed far more considerably.
Presumably space is expanding between galaxies, as it is falling into them. So what is flat space? What has no gravity at all? What is far enough away from any gravity source to be affected?
According to theory, flat space is when the expansion and contraction balance out, so it would seem space sufficiently far away from gravity fields for the light not to be obviously distorted would be expanded, not flat.
report post as inappropriate
Not to dwell on the point, but these differences are all between light that did succeed in passing these gravity wells, not what is falling into them, which would have been slowed far more considerably.
Presumably space is expanding between galaxies, as it is falling into them. So what is flat space? What has no gravity at all? What is far enough away from any gravity source to be affected?
According to theory, flat space is when the expansion and contraction balance out, so it would seem space sufficiently far away from gravity fields for the light not to be obviously distorted would be expanded, not flat.
report post as inappropriate
"A delay of a year or so along one path over the other means a difference between the two proper distances of 1-2 light years over a total distance of billions of light years. This is not a huge difference, and is why these differences in paths is seen with tiny (sec)^2 steradians of solid angle of view. The light from the distant object lensed does not pass close to any central black hole, and two light paths are slightly bent by this curvature."
Yes, it's a very narrow view of what must be a very broad effect, since both paths are lensed, just one slightly more than the other.
report post as inappropriate
Yes, it's a very narrow view of what must be a very broad effect, since both paths are lensed, just one slightly more than the other.
report post as inappropriate
But the lense distances here are NOT billions of light years Lawrence. The calculations show the delays should be orders of magnitude less. And when the top astrophysicists say; "This implies that we're either missing some physics in our simulations, or we may need to modify our cosmological model."
It may be time to remove our heads from the sand and accept there may just be some kind of anomaly here. (Or some galaxies are nearly solid - if that's not anomalous!).
And John. You ask; "Could it be that the light lensing around the galaxies is speeding up, as well as the light going through them is slowing down? Wouldn't that balance the effect out? Might this also be the source of redshift?"
Not 'speeding up' within known physics, as, unlike the 'slingshot' effect of spacecraft acceleration around planets, 'c' is invariant. The overall effects of gravitational time dilation and red shift are also supposed to be small, as Lawrence did say, or even balance out. However, the one thing we DO know for sure about our present physics is that much of it is wrong!
But, if Ted Jacobson is correct and there is an Einstein Ether, you could be right in that the light going through a galaxy could be 'slowed down' wrt us if the galaxy is moving away whilst the light is going through its local field at 'c', which of course we know it does N'est pas?. This would be one of Einsteins "..infinitely many fields in relative motion". Of course this is too 'real' and logical for current science, and, like Messier87, won't quite fit in with it as it can't be wrong!
So perhaps Lawrence is right and there are no anomalies in astronomy. Shall I let them know it's all ok again?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
It may be time to remove our heads from the sand and accept there may just be some kind of anomaly here. (Or some galaxies are nearly solid - if that's not anomalous!).
And John. You ask; "Could it be that the light lensing around the galaxies is speeding up, as well as the light going through them is slowing down? Wouldn't that balance the effect out? Might this also be the source of redshift?"
Not 'speeding up' within known physics, as, unlike the 'slingshot' effect of spacecraft acceleration around planets, 'c' is invariant. The overall effects of gravitational time dilation and red shift are also supposed to be small, as Lawrence did say, or even balance out. However, the one thing we DO know for sure about our present physics is that much of it is wrong!
But, if Ted Jacobson is correct and there is an Einstein Ether, you could be right in that the light going through a galaxy could be 'slowed down' wrt us if the galaxy is moving away whilst the light is going through its local field at 'c', which of course we know it does N'est pas?. This would be one of Einsteins "..infinitely many fields in relative motion". Of course this is too 'real' and logical for current science, and, like Messier87, won't quite fit in with it as it can't be wrong!
So perhaps Lawrence is right and there are no anomalies in astronomy. Shall I let them know it's all ok again?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter,
C may be invariant, but Physics' understanding of space is not, from Inflation theory to whether redshift is due to an expansion "in" space, or "of" space.
My argument with Lawrence has been that if Omega=1 and expansion is inversely proportional to gravitational contraction, then Big Bang theory is a moot point, since space/our measure of space/the effects on light of crossing gravity fields vs. voids, is in a state of overall equilibrium. If the space/our measure of it, is increasing between galaxies at the same rate it is falling into them, where is the overall expansion coming from?
So, no, I'm not suggesting the greater speed of light around galaxies is due to light exceeding C, but as Lawrence keeps pointing out, C is a local effect. If we say "space" is "expanding" outside of gravity wells, then light in this space will travel more quickly than light further in the gravity well. There is no objective default space, as it were, either it's expanding, contracting, or balanced between the two.
That's why I commented on your point, that light going through gravity fields travels slower than that going around them. It is a relative effect, they are only slower, or faster, relative to the other.
report post as inappropriate
C may be invariant, but Physics' understanding of space is not, from Inflation theory to whether redshift is due to an expansion "in" space, or "of" space.
My argument with Lawrence has been that if Omega=1 and expansion is inversely proportional to gravitational contraction, then Big Bang theory is a moot point, since space/our measure of space/the effects on light of crossing gravity fields vs. voids, is in a state of overall equilibrium. If the space/our measure of it, is increasing between galaxies at the same rate it is falling into them, where is the overall expansion coming from?
So, no, I'm not suggesting the greater speed of light around galaxies is due to light exceeding C, but as Lawrence keeps pointing out, C is a local effect. If we say "space" is "expanding" outside of gravity wells, then light in this space will travel more quickly than light further in the gravity well. There is no objective default space, as it were, either it's expanding, contracting, or balanced between the two.
That's why I commented on your point, that light going through gravity fields travels slower than that going around them. It is a relative effect, they are only slower, or faster, relative to the other.
report post as inappropriate
I certainly take your point John, indeed I did say 'with known physics', and that we know that doesn't quite work yet.
The fact is we're dealing with something relative here. Two bits of a Schrodinger wave front seen together, and emitted from exactly the same place, but one sent years later. That severely limits possible conclusions. Yes, there are still many, but of all the models tested none fit with the current cosmological model. Also very few fit with observation. The one that seems to do this most consistently is the one of Einsteins 1952 'infinitely many' discrete fields '..In relative motion.' This allows 'c' to always be local, as Lawrence says, the vector field to be dynamic, as Ted's, and it should be falsifiable. Complex caustics is the other possible area, but this cannot follow any logic or yet match any observation as it's really just extreme gravity well theory. There are others, including UFT etc, but, like cosmology, unfalsifiable. All other ideas gratefully received!
On red shift and increasing expansion I too am a skeptic. I recall doing a double take on the original calcs which seemed wrong to me, but I'm not a maths Guru! I've said this here before but not yet seen it refuted; Take a 2ft bit of elastic and mark the centre, hold one end by your eye and stretch it at a DECREASING rate. The end will move away (red shift) more than the centre. Now also consider that the light we see from the furthest point is from a few billion years earlier, so (as our elastic) the expansion rate will have been much faster then than now. That would give 2 substantial red shift increases even if the rate of expansion is slowing! My own 'guesstimate' would be that it's pretty constant, but hey... maths rules ok!
Peter
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
The fact is we're dealing with something relative here. Two bits of a Schrodinger wave front seen together, and emitted from exactly the same place, but one sent years later. That severely limits possible conclusions. Yes, there are still many, but of all the models tested none fit with the current cosmological model. Also very few fit with observation. The one that seems to do this most consistently is the one of Einsteins 1952 'infinitely many' discrete fields '..In relative motion.' This allows 'c' to always be local, as Lawrence says, the vector field to be dynamic, as Ted's, and it should be falsifiable. Complex caustics is the other possible area, but this cannot follow any logic or yet match any observation as it's really just extreme gravity well theory. There are others, including UFT etc, but, like cosmology, unfalsifiable. All other ideas gratefully received!
On red shift and increasing expansion I too am a skeptic. I recall doing a double take on the original calcs which seemed wrong to me, but I'm not a maths Guru! I've said this here before but not yet seen it refuted; Take a 2ft bit of elastic and mark the centre, hold one end by your eye and stretch it at a DECREASING rate. The end will move away (red shift) more than the centre. Now also consider that the light we see from the furthest point is from a few billion years earlier, so (as our elastic) the expansion rate will have been much faster then than now. That would give 2 substantial red shift increases even if the rate of expansion is slowing! My own 'guesstimate' would be that it's pretty constant, but hey... maths rules ok!
Peter
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Peter,
The problem now is that you are talking about something other than real physics and cosmology. In effect you are raising up increasingly strained arguments to plead your case. The notion that redshifted galaxies and quasars are much more local has been essentially eliminated as a possbility.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The problem now is that you are talking about something other than real physics and cosmology. In effect you are raising up increasingly strained arguments to plead your case. The notion that redshifted galaxies and quasars are much more local has been essentially eliminated as a possbility.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Hi Lawrence
True. - almost; I'm not talking about 'real cosmology' as I think that's a bit of a contradiction in terms, and it's certainly not current mainstream physics.
But 'Strained arguments'? No. You misunderstood my first line. I agree. The comparable is using current distance estimates. i.e. as Evelyn Gates etc. say, it's the current model that throws up the anomaly (or inconsistancy if you prefer). This is the same as the others; Pioneer, Voyager, Superluminal motion, Lunar ranging, Flyby etc. etc, and now WMAPS quadropolar asymmetry.
These are all really important for testing possible corrections to the cosmological model (or 'models'!). And yes, of course our revised models have to depart from 'current physics', that is after all the whole point!
What it really needs is for as many as possible to study these alternatives and comment on any inconsistencies (inconsisent with observation, NOT with 'current physics' or, worse still 'beliefs'). That's proper science! I'm not trying to 'plead' a case, but simply objectively test a postulate that I haven't yet been able to make fail. It's perhaps a little frustrating that no-one else has yet managed to do this with the DFM either. Or maybe that's good!?! Please by all means try, - but scientifically.
Peter
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
True. - almost; I'm not talking about 'real cosmology' as I think that's a bit of a contradiction in terms, and it's certainly not current mainstream physics.
But 'Strained arguments'? No. You misunderstood my first line. I agree. The comparable is using current distance estimates. i.e. as Evelyn Gates etc. say, it's the current model that throws up the anomaly (or inconsistancy if you prefer). This is the same as the others; Pioneer, Voyager, Superluminal motion, Lunar ranging, Flyby etc. etc, and now WMAPS quadropolar asymmetry.
These are all really important for testing possible corrections to the cosmological model (or 'models'!). And yes, of course our revised models have to depart from 'current physics', that is after all the whole point!
What it really needs is for as many as possible to study these alternatives and comment on any inconsistencies (inconsisent with observation, NOT with 'current physics' or, worse still 'beliefs'). That's proper science! I'm not trying to 'plead' a case, but simply objectively test a postulate that I haven't yet been able to make fail. It's perhaps a little frustrating that no-one else has yet managed to do this with the DFM either. Or maybe that's good!?! Please by all means try, - but scientifically.
Peter
this post was moved here from a different topic
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence,
And Inflation theory is real physics and cosmology? Or is it a fudge to correspond theory with observation?
report post as inappropriate
And Inflation theory is real physics and cosmology? Or is it a fudge to correspond theory with observation?
report post as inappropriate
I read with interest your posts but I can't understand some ideas about c.
We can't go more than this limit .
If the elctromagnetism exists, it is due to the gravity and all its superimposings implying synchronizations.
Thus c can decrease and can be polarised , but never the superluminal will be.
It is the gravity the secret because it is a modulator of evolution.The gravity polarises the light in fact .All the gravitational superimposings permit to the light to be in synchro.for the specificity of the gravitational systems.
It is logic in fact .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
We can't go more than this limit .
If the elctromagnetism exists, it is due to the gravity and all its superimposings implying synchronizations.
Thus c can decrease and can be polarised , but never the superluminal will be.
It is the gravity the secret because it is a modulator of evolution.The gravity polarises the light in fact .All the gravitational superimposings permit to the light to be in synchro.for the specificity of the gravitational systems.
It is logic in fact .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Hi Steve
I'm reeally impressed - not a single spinning sphere!
Yes, 'c' absolutely constant - Locally. i.e. in and with respect to the frame it's propagating through (Einstein-Aether or whatever medium the field consists of).
That's where the anomaly of Superluminal gas jets arises, Messier 87 just being the closest of over 20, which Hubble recently confirmed at 6xC wrt our frame.
Till recently only heads in the sand and a few fumbling excuses of 'explanations'. But a dynamic vector field like Einstein Aether can have discrete reference frames in relative motion, so APPARENT superluminal motion, observed from another field, doesn't break the postulates of SR. All such observations will likely come from fast rotating black holes like M87.
Just imagine you're outside the galaxy watching it from an asteroid, and a wave front goes through it at 'c' (wrt the galaxy). But you're also moving at 0.5c the other way (wrt the galaxy). From your frame the wavefront will be doing 1.5c (unless Lorentz suddely shrinks the galaxy) but it's actually doing 'c', locally. The light 'signal' that reaches you from the wavefront in the galaxy also does so at 'c', as does the bit of the original wavefront signal itself that reaches you direct from the source.
If you check out Ted Jacobsons other papers on the arXiv you'll find mention of 'columnar' field structures here. It seems these may be accelerated fields within fields, formed from ions, continually sucked in and ejected by the extreme polar magnetic fields. But do check with Lawrence first as it may not be anomolous anyway so none of that may be needed.
I do hope you're well.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
I'm reeally impressed - not a single spinning sphere!
Yes, 'c' absolutely constant - Locally. i.e. in and with respect to the frame it's propagating through (Einstein-Aether or whatever medium the field consists of).
That's where the anomaly of Superluminal gas jets arises, Messier 87 just being the closest of over 20, which Hubble recently confirmed at 6xC wrt our frame.
Till recently only heads in the sand and a few fumbling excuses of 'explanations'. But a dynamic vector field like Einstein Aether can have discrete reference frames in relative motion, so APPARENT superluminal motion, observed from another field, doesn't break the postulates of SR. All such observations will likely come from fast rotating black holes like M87.
Just imagine you're outside the galaxy watching it from an asteroid, and a wave front goes through it at 'c' (wrt the galaxy). But you're also moving at 0.5c the other way (wrt the galaxy). From your frame the wavefront will be doing 1.5c (unless Lorentz suddely shrinks the galaxy) but it's actually doing 'c', locally. The light 'signal' that reaches you from the wavefront in the galaxy also does so at 'c', as does the bit of the original wavefront signal itself that reaches you direct from the source.
If you check out Ted Jacobsons other papers on the arXiv you'll find mention of 'columnar' field structures here. It seems these may be accelerated fields within fields, formed from ions, continually sucked in and ejected by the extreme polar magnetic fields. But do check with Lawrence first as it may not be anomolous anyway so none of that may be needed.
I do hope you're well.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Dear Peter,
One spinning sphere....I have already explained my fractal, finite and the number correlated with the numbers of cosmological spheres.
Thus the number is important .But it do not exist an infinity in this uniqueness like our Universe.Hope you understand better my model about the spheres and their rotations implying mass.Logically all spheres, quantics or cosmologics are linked in this logic if you know the velocity of rot of a sphere thus you know its mass .......incredible because the resulst imply more than c but it is not linear dear Peter, it is the gravity and its stability.
Now this speed is mre than c thjus if we correlate with two main sense, 1 for the linearity, and 1 for the stability, thus we have an unknown which can be synchronized with c .......an universal constant between spheres.
All spheres thus can be calculated .
The center and the frontier of our physicality thus implies two main senses for the light, the walls take all their senses thus.....hope you understand this universality.
If c is constant too for the rotating spheres of gravity thus it is the sense the key....
in the two senses, two possibilities, c constant for the linearity and the rotations or this speed can be more but there we must insert new parameter.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
One spinning sphere....I have already explained my fractal, finite and the number correlated with the numbers of cosmological spheres.
Thus the number is important .But it do not exist an infinity in this uniqueness like our Universe.Hope you understand better my model about the spheres and their rotations implying mass.Logically all spheres, quantics or cosmologics are linked in this logic if you know the velocity of rot of a sphere thus you know its mass .......incredible because the resulst imply more than c but it is not linear dear Peter, it is the gravity and its stability.
Now this speed is mre than c thjus if we correlate with two main sense, 1 for the linearity, and 1 for the stability, thus we have an unknown which can be synchronized with c .......an universal constant between spheres.
All spheres thus can be calculated .
The center and the frontier of our physicality thus implies two main senses for the light, the walls take all their senses thus.....hope you understand this universality.
If c is constant too for the rotating spheres of gravity thus it is the sense the key....
in the two senses, two possibilities, c constant for the linearity and the rotations or this speed can be more but there we must insert new parameter.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
The anomalies you cite are either nonexistent or not of great concern. The so called Pioneer anomaly does not occur with Voyager, which suggests an instrument effect. There are also some flyby anomalies as well, but they do not occur consistently, also suggesting an instrument effect. This could be due to a small pressure leak or some Newton’s 3 rd law effect from solar heating at a side that evaporates off polymers etc, or in the case of Pioneer maybe these craft have run into some tenuous gas that acts as a drag force. People are not going bonkers over these observations.
As for inflationary cosmology, so far all the predictions from it have been observed. It is not a complete theory, for the parameters are ‘free,” and the conditions involving inflationary reheating and the rest are predicted only within a range which the data falls within.
I really think people need to focus in on the real stuff as best as possible. It is harder, but more satisfying. I have a conjecture that technology on average makes us more stupid than smart. We have access to more information, but so much of that information is spurious or wrong. In previous ages information was printed and fairly expensive. Most people managed to read better writing and less of the piles of nonsense so endemic to our modern age.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
As for inflationary cosmology, so far all the predictions from it have been observed. It is not a complete theory, for the parameters are ‘free,” and the conditions involving inflationary reheating and the rest are predicted only within a range which the data falls within.
I really think people need to focus in on the real stuff as best as possible. It is harder, but more satisfying. I have a conjecture that technology on average makes us more stupid than smart. We have access to more information, but so much of that information is spurious or wrong. In previous ages information was printed and fairly expensive. Most people managed to read better writing and less of the piles of nonsense so endemic to our modern age.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf
An Einstein's birthday present to the seeker.
report post as inappropriate
An Einstein's birthday present to the seeker.
report post as inappropriate
Hi dear Peter,
Thanks it is nice.
You know to be transparent, I am not well, I am lost in the system, I win 600 euros/month and the life here is very difficult.
My health is not very good due to some psychiatric problems and a coma at the age of 20.But I am stronger and I live even like that.
The life is difficult sometimes.But it is like that.
I try to create the sciences center but here in my region , that seems an impossible thing due to the politic.But I will try still and always.
I am taken like a crazzy in fact .
About the superluminal, like I said before , it is bizare this limit about the evolution and the interactions between the cosmological spheres.
Perhaps it is possible but perhaps what the physcality and its different steps towards the central sphere can imply these effects.Or perhaps it is just a perception due to some superimposings which accelerate c , just an optic data thus, I don't know , in all case that seems bizare this limit for the interactions between lifes in our universal sphere.
Take care dear Peter
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Thanks it is nice.
You know to be transparent, I am not well, I am lost in the system, I win 600 euros/month and the life here is very difficult.
My health is not very good due to some psychiatric problems and a coma at the age of 20.But I am stronger and I live even like that.
The life is difficult sometimes.But it is like that.
I try to create the sciences center but here in my region , that seems an impossible thing due to the politic.But I will try still and always.
I am taken like a crazzy in fact .
About the superluminal, like I said before , it is bizare this limit about the evolution and the interactions between the cosmological spheres.
Perhaps it is possible but perhaps what the physcality and its different steps towards the central sphere can imply these effects.Or perhaps it is just a perception due to some superimposings which accelerate c , just an optic data thus, I don't know , in all case that seems bizare this limit for the interactions between lifes in our universal sphere.
Take care dear Peter
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Hi Lawrence.
I entirely agree that more technology makes some less smart.
But beware, lack of information is even more effective!
Take Voyager for instance, you say 'the Pioneer anomaly did not occur', but there are approaching 100 detailed papers on the many anomalies, from both Voyagers 1 and 2. An early overview is here;
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=940
Ot
her V2 data is just as new. i.e. the solar polarity reversal 'wave', changing from 13 days to over 100 at the heliosheaths dense particle bow shock. The only science that could fully explain this so far is common FM wave/particle interaction, which needs a 'medium' and absolute velocity. I can now tell you that ESA have also found this basis is essential. And, as with the quadropolar inconsistecy of WMAP, much of the work going on to clean up the Planck CMB picture has had to relate to 'cosmic dipole' signals, which is the activity caused by our motion with respect to the background CM field.
Check the (very) latest release referring to this at; http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=
46706
This only scratches the information surface Lawrence. And it is 'the real stuff'. Sure, ignorance is bliss, if bliss is what we want, but the more good evidence we use the safer the conclusions. Using 'beleifs' is another way, but personally I prefer science. Sure, we're not going bonkers, but we also need to remember we don't 'know it all'. ('1,000th of 1%' according to Einstein).
You should be aware your last posts have sounded a little like the guy in the late 1800's who declared that science was all sorted and people who were looking at anomalies were wasting their time as there was no more left to discover!
Karl Popper said mankind needs to be able to challenge ruling paradigms to survive. I we all consider him wrong.. he may just be proved right!
Last quotes, AE again; "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has it's own reason for existence". and..on Relativity in 1944; "I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find." (in a little known letter to Max Born in 1944).
So.. do you reeally still think it's all sorted?!
Peter
report post as inappropriate
I entirely agree that more technology makes some less smart.
But beware, lack of information is even more effective!
Take Voyager for instance, you say 'the Pioneer anomaly did not occur', but there are approaching 100 detailed papers on the many anomalies, from both Voyagers 1 and 2. An early overview is here;
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=940
Ot
her V2 data is just as new. i.e. the solar polarity reversal 'wave', changing from 13 days to over 100 at the heliosheaths dense particle bow shock. The only science that could fully explain this so far is common FM wave/particle interaction, which needs a 'medium' and absolute velocity. I can now tell you that ESA have also found this basis is essential. And, as with the quadropolar inconsistecy of WMAP, much of the work going on to clean up the Planck CMB picture has had to relate to 'cosmic dipole' signals, which is the activity caused by our motion with respect to the background CM field.
Check the (very) latest release referring to this at; http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=
46706
This only scratches the information surface Lawrence. And it is 'the real stuff'. Sure, ignorance is bliss, if bliss is what we want, but the more good evidence we use the safer the conclusions. Using 'beleifs' is another way, but personally I prefer science. Sure, we're not going bonkers, but we also need to remember we don't 'know it all'. ('1,000th of 1%' according to Einstein).
You should be aware your last posts have sounded a little like the guy in the late 1800's who declared that science was all sorted and people who were looking at anomalies were wasting their time as there was no more left to discover!
Karl Popper said mankind needs to be able to challenge ruling paradigms to survive. I we all consider him wrong.. he may just be proved right!
Last quotes, AE again; "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has it's own reason for existence". and..on Relativity in 1944; "I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find." (in a little known letter to Max Born in 1944).
So.. do you reeally still think it's all sorted?!
Peter
report post as inappropriate
None of this really changes much with the nature of gravity, relativity or inflationary cosmology. I don't honestly track this stuff much, and what I know about this these orbital shifts are some sort of physical effect of drag or some sort of interaction with tenuous gas.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
I'm not quite sure what happened to the rest of my last post Lawrence. I suspect a dyed in the wool relativist hijacked it!
I think you're essentially correct. The orbital 'shock' wave is a physical drag effect related to 'some sort of interaction with tenuous gas'. But what it does undeniably show is that the planet is in motion through such a 'medium' at rest wrt the sun.
Let's now consider for a moment. I believe Einstein, Lee Smolin, Roger Penrose, Ted Jacobson, Petr etc are all correct. There is something fundamentally wrong with physics and it needs some kind of unified field theory.
You seem to be saying it's all actually fine! or We, or I, shouldn't bother to search. If that's not what your saying please clarify.
If we ARE allowed to look, we must define what we're looking for. How about something the unifies SR with QFT, Reality with Locality, matches all observation, and resolves a few anomolies and paradoxes for good measure. Would that be a fair target?
So let's think ahead; Lets say someone eventually finds a model that seems to work at all levels and passes all initial tests. By definition the physics would have to change the ruling paradigms. Do you think everyone on first seeing it would immediately actually study it, and say, "wow! well done, ..at last!"
How would YOU respond?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
I think you're essentially correct. The orbital 'shock' wave is a physical drag effect related to 'some sort of interaction with tenuous gas'. But what it does undeniably show is that the planet is in motion through such a 'medium' at rest wrt the sun.
Let's now consider for a moment. I believe Einstein, Lee Smolin, Roger Penrose, Ted Jacobson, Petr etc are all correct. There is something fundamentally wrong with physics and it needs some kind of unified field theory.
You seem to be saying it's all actually fine! or We, or I, shouldn't bother to search. If that's not what your saying please clarify.
If we ARE allowed to look, we must define what we're looking for. How about something the unifies SR with QFT, Reality with Locality, matches all observation, and resolves a few anomolies and paradoxes for good measure. Would that be a fair target?
So let's think ahead; Lets say someone eventually finds a model that seems to work at all levels and passes all initial tests. By definition the physics would have to change the ruling paradigms. Do you think everyone on first seeing it would immediately actually study it, and say, "wow! well done, ..at last!"
How would YOU respond?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Ooops, sorry, it'd logged me out!, Yes, that was me above Lawrence.
There's something funny going on with the posts at present. Is it the new response system Brendan?
And thanks Steve. Keep up the research, and never give up hope of your own eureka moment, and your sciences centre. But, and maybe I know from experience, ..if you want to convince someone you're not 'crazzy' you'd have to try to assess how he thinks and harmonise your own brain wave frequencies with his. (that's wave particle interaction!).
It'd probably take a genius!!
Keep well.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
There's something funny going on with the posts at present. Is it the new response system Brendan?
And thanks Steve. Keep up the research, and never give up hope of your own eureka moment, and your sciences centre. But, and maybe I know from experience, ..if you want to convince someone you're not 'crazzy' you'd have to try to assess how he thinks and harmonise your own brain wave frequencies with his. (that's wave particle interaction!).
It'd probably take a genius!!
Keep well.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Hello Peter ,
I am going to expalin in French.
Bonjour Peter,
Premièrement je me fous de la reconnaissance car je sais ce que j'ai trouvé, un dur labeur et travail.
Il est vain pour moi de faire comprendre ma théorie à des personnes limitées.
Je n'ai besoin de convaincre personne , car la vérité est la vérité et les sciences sont les sciences.Si je dois être reconnu, je le serai, si je dois améliorer, je le ferai avec les compétents, le reste n'au aucune importance pour moi.Leur seule solution est de me tuer mais j'en ai rien à faire de la mort, je suis déjà mort en fait ahahahahah
Si je perds mon temps sur le net c'est que j'ai des raisons pour avancer et oui je devais parler de ma théorie de cette façon pour que personne ne me vole encore une fois.
Je ne crene pas la, communauté scientifique avec toutes ces suggestions sans fondement.
Ce qui m'inquiète est l'état de la communauté scientifique et ses dérives.
Convaincre qui , pour quoi, pour qui....ce n'est point ma façon de fonctionner .
Je crache sur l'argent Peter et je mange les pseudos sciences.En fait vous savez j'en ai rien à faire de ce que pense les autres, qu'ils se pavanent, qu'ils diffament, qu'ils calomnient, qu'ils salissent, qu'ils soient jaloux, je m'en tape total .
Certains font les malins et les intelligents en parlant en leur première langue, mais moi aussi j'ai ma première langue.
Des personnes scientifiquement compétentes voient cette évidence de ma théorie, les autres tentent tout simplement de se donner de la crédibilité avec des pseudos sciences et ses illusions.Je m'en fous à un tel point
Je ne suis ni meilleur , ni mieux, ni ci ou ca ....mais je sais sur ce que j'ai travaillé..........
I am not a genius, just a worker ......mais une chse sure et certaine, jamais ma théorie sera cette d'un autre et je créerai ce centre scientifique.
Si je dois faire des grimaces pour les business men...NON MERCI .J'ai assez donné et assez perdui dans le passé..........
Portez vous bien Peter et bonne chance avec C .
Convaincre qui , des incompétents peut être je suis fou et fier de l'être vive la révolution
Steve
report post as inappropriate
I am going to expalin in French.
Bonjour Peter,
Premièrement je me fous de la reconnaissance car je sais ce que j'ai trouvé, un dur labeur et travail.
Il est vain pour moi de faire comprendre ma théorie à des personnes limitées.
Je n'ai besoin de convaincre personne , car la vérité est la vérité et les sciences sont les sciences.Si je dois être reconnu, je le serai, si je dois améliorer, je le ferai avec les compétents, le reste n'au aucune importance pour moi.Leur seule solution est de me tuer mais j'en ai rien à faire de la mort, je suis déjà mort en fait ahahahahah
Si je perds mon temps sur le net c'est que j'ai des raisons pour avancer et oui je devais parler de ma théorie de cette façon pour que personne ne me vole encore une fois.
Je ne crene pas la, communauté scientifique avec toutes ces suggestions sans fondement.
Ce qui m'inquiète est l'état de la communauté scientifique et ses dérives.
Convaincre qui , pour quoi, pour qui....ce n'est point ma façon de fonctionner .
Je crache sur l'argent Peter et je mange les pseudos sciences.En fait vous savez j'en ai rien à faire de ce que pense les autres, qu'ils se pavanent, qu'ils diffament, qu'ils calomnient, qu'ils salissent, qu'ils soient jaloux, je m'en tape total .
Certains font les malins et les intelligents en parlant en leur première langue, mais moi aussi j'ai ma première langue.
Des personnes scientifiquement compétentes voient cette évidence de ma théorie, les autres tentent tout simplement de se donner de la crédibilité avec des pseudos sciences et ses illusions.Je m'en fous à un tel point
Je ne suis ni meilleur , ni mieux, ni ci ou ca ....mais je sais sur ce que j'ai travaillé..........
I am not a genius, just a worker ......mais une chse sure et certaine, jamais ma théorie sera cette d'un autre et je créerai ce centre scientifique.
Si je dois faire des grimaces pour les business men...NON MERCI .J'ai assez donné et assez perdui dans le passé..........
Portez vous bien Peter et bonne chance avec C .
Convaincre qui , des incompétents peut être je suis fou et fier de l'être vive la révolution
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Je suis fatigué Peter, Las de ces années de malheur.
Je suis fatigué de ce monde, fatigué de ces conneries .
Je suis isolé dans 100 m² de maison et 120 m² de jardin.
Parfois je me dis , ben prennez moi Père tout puissant prenez moi et enlevez moi de cette planète.
Je suis fatigué Peter tout simplement d'années de problèmes et malheurs, d'années d'incompréhension, d'années de critiques et autres.
J'en ai marre tout simplement.
Mes pas s'enlisent et mes souflles sont fatigués,je ne fais que survivre en fait ....croyez vous que je crois encore à mon bonheur , je suis las et encore las , je mérite cette reconnaissance de ma théorie de la sphérisation ,et vous savez je m'en fous en fait c'est dingue hein et c'est ainsi ....ce qui compte à mes yeux est ce centre scientifique car là ce n'est pas ma petite et humble personne qui en dépend mais bien les oubliés du système, affamés , sans eau ni médicament ...le reste n'est que vain .
Convaincre n'est point mon but car je sais que la sphérisation est universelle et qu'il y a un but harmonique pour les vies ........c'est celà qui est important, qui sommes nous à part des bébés de l'Univers créés avec amour .....
Amicalement Peter et sincèrement
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Je suis fatigué de ce monde, fatigué de ces conneries .
Je suis isolé dans 100 m² de maison et 120 m² de jardin.
Parfois je me dis , ben prennez moi Père tout puissant prenez moi et enlevez moi de cette planète.
Je suis fatigué Peter tout simplement d'années de problèmes et malheurs, d'années d'incompréhension, d'années de critiques et autres.
J'en ai marre tout simplement.
Mes pas s'enlisent et mes souflles sont fatigués,je ne fais que survivre en fait ....croyez vous que je crois encore à mon bonheur , je suis las et encore las , je mérite cette reconnaissance de ma théorie de la sphérisation ,et vous savez je m'en fous en fait c'est dingue hein et c'est ainsi ....ce qui compte à mes yeux est ce centre scientifique car là ce n'est pas ma petite et humble personne qui en dépend mais bien les oubliés du système, affamés , sans eau ni médicament ...le reste n'est que vain .
Convaincre n'est point mon but car je sais que la sphérisation est universelle et qu'il y a un but harmonique pour les vies ........c'est celà qui est important, qui sommes nous à part des bébés de l'Univers créés avec amour .....
Amicalement Peter et sincèrement
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Rester fort Steve. Mon français est des déchets mais je ferai l'effort ;
Oui, l'état de la communauté scientifique m'inquiète aussi. Mais ce n'est qu'un reflet de la condition humaine, et le c'est jusqu'à nous tous d'essayer de l'améliorer.
J'ai un pholosophy quand je tombe sur les idiots. J'essaierai d'aider ouvert leurs yeux si je peux, mais aussi essayer de découvrir et apprécier qu'ils peuvent faire bien. Et toujours je remercie mes étoiles heureuses ils sont des idiots, parce que s'ils étaient tous génies je serais l'idiot !
Vous avez eu une vie dure si éloigné, mais rappeler 2 choses ; il y a toujours ces pire de que vous, pensez de tous vous pouvez. Et ; votre destinée est dans vos propres mains, howver beaucoup de lui ne peut pas semble si.
Mon conseil sur votre théorie ? Vous le voulez ? Je le donnerai de toute façon. Il a une partiellement bonne base mais le bon ce sont le même comme très BEAUCOUP D'unfalsifiable les AUTRES idées. Lâcher le dogme et le retour à la méthode scientifique correcte. Rassembler de la preuve plus large éloignée, tomber n'importe quelle partie qui n'est pas falsifiable, développer un nombre de modèles et les essayer entièrement. Si vous aimez le que les maths essaient cela, mais nos esprits sont potentiellement éloignés plus puissants que juste les nombres. Vous pouvez trouver une version une modifiée subitement crises parfaitement dans le grand complexe 3D énigme de puzzle.
Si vous ne ceci faites pas vos théories seront considérées sans valeur. En fait même si vous faites, et le c'est correct, il prendra un intellegence rare et spécial pour reconnaître cela, et alors un autre quart d'un siècle pour changer un paradigme ! Ne pas prévoir des miracles, mais ne jamais renoncer.
J'ai une devise ; « j'ai la force de dix hommes comme je suis pur dans le coeur » Vous pouvez l'emprunter si vous souhaitez !
Egards les plus sincères
Pierre
(PS. I think we'd better now revert to english!)
report post as inappropriate
Oui, l'état de la communauté scientifique m'inquiète aussi. Mais ce n'est qu'un reflet de la condition humaine, et le c'est jusqu'à nous tous d'essayer de l'améliorer.
J'ai un pholosophy quand je tombe sur les idiots. J'essaierai d'aider ouvert leurs yeux si je peux, mais aussi essayer de découvrir et apprécier qu'ils peuvent faire bien. Et toujours je remercie mes étoiles heureuses ils sont des idiots, parce que s'ils étaient tous génies je serais l'idiot !
Vous avez eu une vie dure si éloigné, mais rappeler 2 choses ; il y a toujours ces pire de que vous, pensez de tous vous pouvez. Et ; votre destinée est dans vos propres mains, howver beaucoup de lui ne peut pas semble si.
Mon conseil sur votre théorie ? Vous le voulez ? Je le donnerai de toute façon. Il a une partiellement bonne base mais le bon ce sont le même comme très BEAUCOUP D'unfalsifiable les AUTRES idées. Lâcher le dogme et le retour à la méthode scientifique correcte. Rassembler de la preuve plus large éloignée, tomber n'importe quelle partie qui n'est pas falsifiable, développer un nombre de modèles et les essayer entièrement. Si vous aimez le que les maths essaient cela, mais nos esprits sont potentiellement éloignés plus puissants que juste les nombres. Vous pouvez trouver une version une modifiée subitement crises parfaitement dans le grand complexe 3D énigme de puzzle.
Si vous ne ceci faites pas vos théories seront considérées sans valeur. En fait même si vous faites, et le c'est correct, il prendra un intellegence rare et spécial pour reconnaître cela, et alors un autre quart d'un siècle pour changer un paradigme ! Ne pas prévoir des miracles, mais ne jamais renoncer.
J'ai une devise ; « j'ai la force de dix hommes comme je suis pur dans le coeur » Vous pouvez l'emprunter si vous souhaitez !
Egards les plus sincères
Pierre
(PS. I think we'd better now revert to english!)
report post as inappropriate
Hi dear Peter,
Cool the words in French, thanks.
I agree indeed I must be strong.
You know I have many friends in the world who know me and wait me furthermore.
They are wondeful people with a big heart ....alone we are nothing.
We are going to improve the quality of lifes of our fellow men, simply.
You know about my theory, there too I repeat, the real scientists I am persuaded have seen this truth about my ultim gauge between the quantum spheres....the cosmological sphere inside the universal sphere.
To have this kind of conclusions, many centers of intersts have been studied with a deep analyze.
I class all since 15 years dear Peter , I class all ,I class all mass.....It is like that I have found 10 years ago the reality of the spheres in the sphere.
Proof what dear Peter ........it is already made, now I must improve simply with a good team to publish many articles, innovants and revolutionnaries.
I am not here on FQXi for discussing about irreality or pseudos sciences but about the real physicality.
I am surprised dear Peter, I am surprised about ther sciences community.
Perhaps the main parameter is the vanity simply and an other, the business......it is sad .....a real scientist is an universalist, that's all.
With humility, people confounds all , it is incredible.If it is that which is studied at universities, thus it exists a very big problem.....
The Manathan project seems global.........sad reality.It is with that you agree dear Peter, me no.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Cool the words in French, thanks.
I agree indeed I must be strong.
You know I have many friends in the world who know me and wait me furthermore.
They are wondeful people with a big heart ....alone we are nothing.
We are going to improve the quality of lifes of our fellow men, simply.
You know about my theory, there too I repeat, the real scientists I am persuaded have seen this truth about my ultim gauge between the quantum spheres....the cosmological sphere inside the universal sphere.
To have this kind of conclusions, many centers of intersts have been studied with a deep analyze.
I class all since 15 years dear Peter , I class all ,I class all mass.....It is like that I have found 10 years ago the reality of the spheres in the sphere.
Proof what dear Peter ........it is already made, now I must improve simply with a good team to publish many articles, innovants and revolutionnaries.
I am not here on FQXi for discussing about irreality or pseudos sciences but about the real physicality.
I am surprised dear Peter, I am surprised about ther sciences community.
Perhaps the main parameter is the vanity simply and an other, the business......it is sad .....a real scientist is an universalist, that's all.
With humility, people confounds all , it is incredible.If it is that which is studied at universities, thus it exists a very big problem.....
The Manathan project seems global.........sad reality.It is with that you agree dear Peter, me no.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Hmm. As always Lawrence, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You say;
"None of this really changes much with the nature of gravity, relativity or inflationary cosmology. I don't honestly track this stuff much, and what I know about this these orbital shifts are some sort of physical effect of drag or some sort of interaction with tenuous gas."
Some complain when others don't see their viewpoint. I say 'Vive la difference'. It's good that most are happy with the physics we have, but it's also essential that a few are not. Scientific progress can only ever be made by the latter small minority with vision.
We must all have beliefs, but the biggest danger to science is when those who haven't bothered to get their knowledge up to scratch don't recognise that fact, and rely on those beleifs - then tell those that HAVE bothered that they're talking nonsense!
I'm sure you can see that if they got their way our future would be sealed.
And yes. Every bit of progress in fundamental science invariably "changes much." Consequential effects are the life blood of progress. But we can only ever guess how exciting each change may be.
We may even, at any time, be discussing superluminal motion or anti gravity, unless everybody believes what he knows is all there is. Petr Horava is one of the latter few. Are you?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
"None of this really changes much with the nature of gravity, relativity or inflationary cosmology. I don't honestly track this stuff much, and what I know about this these orbital shifts are some sort of physical effect of drag or some sort of interaction with tenuous gas."
Some complain when others don't see their viewpoint. I say 'Vive la difference'. It's good that most are happy with the physics we have, but it's also essential that a few are not. Scientific progress can only ever be made by the latter small minority with vision.
We must all have beliefs, but the biggest danger to science is when those who haven't bothered to get their knowledge up to scratch don't recognise that fact, and rely on those beleifs - then tell those that HAVE bothered that they're talking nonsense!
I'm sure you can see that if they got their way our future would be sealed.
And yes. Every bit of progress in fundamental science invariably "changes much." Consequential effects are the life blood of progress. But we can only ever guess how exciting each change may be.
We may even, at any time, be discussing superluminal motion or anti gravity, unless everybody believes what he knows is all there is. Petr Horava is one of the latter few. Are you?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter,
We can't confound .
I saw the pseudos sciences and furthermore they think they are competents hahahaha I am laughing.
Vive la différence oui et non Peter, the free speaking is important but it is not a reason to accept their ideas.
Thus scientists of the world ...pay attention, the sciences are not the sciences hope you see this truth about the truth.
I am not here to lost my time with pseudos sciences or discuss without foundamentals.....maths or physics , thet is the question.......
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
We can't confound .
I saw the pseudos sciences and furthermore they think they are competents hahahaha I am laughing.
Vive la différence oui et non Peter, the free speaking is important but it is not a reason to accept their ideas.
Thus scientists of the world ...pay attention, the sciences are not the sciences hope you see this truth about the truth.
I am not here to lost my time with pseudos sciences or discuss without foundamentals.....maths or physics , thet is the question.......
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Peter,
You are fighting against the information-tunneling problem. As a man goes down an information path, he makes choices in the direction that he takes as opposed to other possible choices that he could have made. Choices are often mutually exclusive such that to chose one direction means to reject others. If one has traveled down a given path for many years, it is much easier to...
view entire post
You are fighting against the information-tunneling problem. As a man goes down an information path, he makes choices in the direction that he takes as opposed to other possible choices that he could have made. Choices are often mutually exclusive such that to chose one direction means to reject others. If one has traveled down a given path for many years, it is much easier to...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
There is a bit of a mixing of ideas. The Hovra aether here is not the pre-Einsteinian aether. Secondly the spacecraft data, particularly Pioneer anomaly, is not controlled such that anything can really concluded.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence
You say; "The Hovra aether here is not the pre-Einsteinian aether". Nor is that of Einstein Ether theory or the DFM Lawrence.
I assume you mean something like Maxwells 'all pervading' model? But let's consider what we really know about them that's important.
1) They represent the background field/3rd Frame we've always known exists.
2) The latter, including Ted's modification, are dynamic vector tensor fields, the DFM Barycentric, related in conceptual form and scale to magnetospheres.
Yes, there are subtle differences between the models, the DFM derived more from AOE and, so far, being 100% predictive and unrefuted. The point here is that it needs more proper scientific testing NOT just opinion based only on beliefs!! That's called "religion".
Voyagers 1 and 2 have filled in much detail we didn't get from Pioneer. I agree, it's always dangerous to draw conclusions, that's why we construct and test postulates and models to test against all the KNOWN data, which is now quite vast.
None of the previous ones work, and most of the subsequent ones are either limited assumptions, not really models, or work little better all round. I've tested plenty. Just one has stood out miles above the rest with 100% test results in all areas, and providing explanations for all anomalous data. - Discrete dynamic barycentric fields with wave-particle boundary interaction (FM).
Are you saying we shouldn't bother trying to falsify it with more testing??
Peter
report post as inappropriate
You say; "The Hovra aether here is not the pre-Einsteinian aether". Nor is that of Einstein Ether theory or the DFM Lawrence.
I assume you mean something like Maxwells 'all pervading' model? But let's consider what we really know about them that's important.
1) They represent the background field/3rd Frame we've always known exists.
2) The latter, including Ted's modification, are dynamic vector tensor fields, the DFM Barycentric, related in conceptual form and scale to magnetospheres.
Yes, there are subtle differences between the models, the DFM derived more from AOE and, so far, being 100% predictive and unrefuted. The point here is that it needs more proper scientific testing NOT just opinion based only on beliefs!! That's called "religion".
Voyagers 1 and 2 have filled in much detail we didn't get from Pioneer. I agree, it's always dangerous to draw conclusions, that's why we construct and test postulates and models to test against all the KNOWN data, which is now quite vast.
None of the previous ones work, and most of the subsequent ones are either limited assumptions, not really models, or work little better all round. I've tested plenty. Just one has stood out miles above the rest with 100% test results in all areas, and providing explanations for all anomalous data. - Discrete dynamic barycentric fields with wave-particle boundary interaction (FM).
Are you saying we shouldn't bother trying to falsify it with more testing??
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Horava's theory involves a breaking of the Lorentz group by the vacuum. This means the symmetries of the Lagrangian for a system are reduced on a vacuum state. I don’t happen to think this system is likely. There are things to be said for solid state analogues with spacetime physics, but the lattice is also subject to the symmetries of the fields, analogous to electrons or phonons in Brillouin zones. This results in a noncommutative geometry, which physically induces a quantum torsion connection and tiny corrections on curvatures. These curvature corrections are similar to the R + α’R^{ab}R_{ab} + … Lagrangian in string theory. In doing this there is no, or at least there should be no, breaking of the Lorentz group.
The problem with what you are suggesting is that it borders on quasi-physics. The terms you are using, such as “discrete dynamic barycentric field,” are not standard particularly, or at least most of what you allude to are not matters of concerns with physics foundations.
The Pioneer anomalies and other things can be overviewed here, where this strange ephemiris in the spacecraft motion is likely due to at least one of a number of rather mundane effects.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The problem with what you are suggesting is that it borders on quasi-physics. The terms you are using, such as “discrete dynamic barycentric field,” are not standard particularly, or at least most of what you allude to are not matters of concerns with physics foundations.
The Pioneer anomalies and other things can be overviewed here, where this strange ephemiris in the spacecraft motion is likely due to at least one of a number of rather mundane effects.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Hi Paul
Thanks for your support. Good to see you here, and great to find there's more intelligent life! I loved your essay as it was in a similar vein to mine, that only we ourselves are the limiting factor. A much underrated truth.
I quite like your sub-energy concept. You'll be aware it seems consistent with the DFM, but I'll have to learn and consider it more if I'm to build it in. Let me have any links (and I'll give you mine!)
As important is your 1st paragraph. I've been considering how on earth we change ruling paradigms. My initial vision was very close to yours; We've been following a jungle path, getting deeper and deeper, a while ago the path ran out and we're hacking through impassible undergrowth. The group has basically split into two who've lost touch, but now it's every man for himself, all desperately hacking individually, hanging on to their own version of which way to go.
I decided to bail out and re-trace our footsteps. Eventually I found where the path split. George Stokes & Co couldn't refute some nonsense on stellar aberration, and the wrong path was followed. I found the right path, a nice fast clear one, but in a totally different direction. In fact when Einstein was trying to close the gap between Reality and Copenhagen he was looking the wrong way. - the answer was MORE reality! I've now reached our goal, a wide open sunny land where everything is clear, simple and comprehensible. But those other guys would never loose the belief they're almost there, so will never find it.
The odd straggler has found the path and joined me, someone said they saw Petr Horava and a small group a few clicks away. Maybe he's turned in the right direction. We've lit a fire, and I shall just keep quietly shouting.
Have you got your head round the FM bit yet? That's a bit of a leap from false reality, but worth it.
Very best wishes.
Peter
PS. To mix metaphores, I think the only answer may be a unified rally to the flag and invincible weapon of a consistent SR alternative to take on the troglodites in a concerted battle. It may be a bit of a disparate bunch, but care to consider joining up?
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for your support. Good to see you here, and great to find there's more intelligent life! I loved your essay as it was in a similar vein to mine, that only we ourselves are the limiting factor. A much underrated truth.
I quite like your sub-energy concept. You'll be aware it seems consistent with the DFM, but I'll have to learn and consider it more if I'm to build it in. Let me have any links (and I'll give you mine!)
As important is your 1st paragraph. I've been considering how on earth we change ruling paradigms. My initial vision was very close to yours; We've been following a jungle path, getting deeper and deeper, a while ago the path ran out and we're hacking through impassible undergrowth. The group has basically split into two who've lost touch, but now it's every man for himself, all desperately hacking individually, hanging on to their own version of which way to go.
I decided to bail out and re-trace our footsteps. Eventually I found where the path split. George Stokes & Co couldn't refute some nonsense on stellar aberration, and the wrong path was followed. I found the right path, a nice fast clear one, but in a totally different direction. In fact when Einstein was trying to close the gap between Reality and Copenhagen he was looking the wrong way. - the answer was MORE reality! I've now reached our goal, a wide open sunny land where everything is clear, simple and comprehensible. But those other guys would never loose the belief they're almost there, so will never find it.
The odd straggler has found the path and joined me, someone said they saw Petr Horava and a small group a few clicks away. Maybe he's turned in the right direction. We've lit a fire, and I shall just keep quietly shouting.
Have you got your head round the FM bit yet? That's a bit of a leap from false reality, but worth it.
Very best wishes.
Peter
PS. To mix metaphores, I think the only answer may be a unified rally to the flag and invincible weapon of a consistent SR alternative to take on the troglodites in a concerted battle. It may be a bit of a disparate bunch, but care to consider joining up?
report post as inappropriate
Peter,
Support is what I am here for. I hope it is the kind that will be acceptable to you. It won’t be so, to many, especially the science clones who look at the current science fad and look for a little shelf in the tunnel in which to build a new side offshoot. My purpose is not to give a ready made new science revelation to man, but to see if man is capable of developing one himself...
view entire post
Support is what I am here for. I hope it is the kind that will be acceptable to you. It won’t be so, to many, especially the science clones who look at the current science fad and look for a little shelf in the tunnel in which to build a new side offshoot. My purpose is not to give a ready made new science revelation to man, but to see if man is capable of developing one himself...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Thanks Paul
It seems you're already being proved right about 'science clones', if proof were needed. Most still need the courage to let go of 100yr old thinking to allow the odd foray to really gain new perspectives.
If we can talk a little more about FM, which we use a lot;
It's at the heart of wave/particle interaction. The simplified conventional viewpoint is that EM waves get messed about after transmission, and transmitters and receivers move, which affects frequency (Doppler shifts). In radios, single particle oscillators are set at the transmission frequency. They receive messy EM waves and clean them up by shifting them back to the original frequency, transmission wave velocity 'c' being the fixed reference.
Now think of this in a different way, and consider; If a spacecraft is returning to earth at 100miles/sec. it receives our communications 'blue shifted', as the arrival frequency is effectively greater than it would be. Oscillators can only emitt EM waves at 'c'. What they therefore actually do is receive EM waves at ANY effective velocity and Doppler shift them to emitt at 'c'.
So now consider what would happen if we had a thick shock of oscillating particles moving through a heliosphere, say, for arguments sake, ahead of a large 'dragged ether' field around some mass, say a planet. EM waves would travel at 'c' wrt the 'background' Heliospheric space, then hit the shock particles, be blue shifted, and travel past the planet at 'c' wrt the planet.
And yes, the oscillating particles have to be condensed from a sub- or dark energy field with density and frequency proportional to relative velocity.
Now think carefully about the possible implications of that simple new viewpoint for a while.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
It seems you're already being proved right about 'science clones', if proof were needed. Most still need the courage to let go of 100yr old thinking to allow the odd foray to really gain new perspectives.
If we can talk a little more about FM, which we use a lot;
It's at the heart of wave/particle interaction. The simplified conventional viewpoint is that EM waves get messed about after transmission, and transmitters and receivers move, which affects frequency (Doppler shifts). In radios, single particle oscillators are set at the transmission frequency. They receive messy EM waves and clean them up by shifting them back to the original frequency, transmission wave velocity 'c' being the fixed reference.
Now think of this in a different way, and consider; If a spacecraft is returning to earth at 100miles/sec. it receives our communications 'blue shifted', as the arrival frequency is effectively greater than it would be. Oscillators can only emitt EM waves at 'c'. What they therefore actually do is receive EM waves at ANY effective velocity and Doppler shift them to emitt at 'c'.
So now consider what would happen if we had a thick shock of oscillating particles moving through a heliosphere, say, for arguments sake, ahead of a large 'dragged ether' field around some mass, say a planet. EM waves would travel at 'c' wrt the 'background' Heliospheric space, then hit the shock particles, be blue shifted, and travel past the planet at 'c' wrt the planet.
And yes, the oscillating particles have to be condensed from a sub- or dark energy field with density and frequency proportional to relative velocity.
Now think carefully about the possible implications of that simple new viewpoint for a while.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
The foundations of physics contain an obstruction. I think one development in removing this obstruction is the holographic principle. The obstruction removed here is the standard notion of what is meant by an event or particle at a certain location, where the implications of holography are rather strange and require one to abandon certain constructions. I think a further development requires the removal of the idea there is a unique S-matrix description of quantum gravitational processes or the causal propagation of events. There is instead a whole modular system of S-matrices. I don't want to belabor that particularly here, and a part of the reason is that this requires a different way of thinking that is not easily imparted in a short blog post.
When it comes to classical relativity theory, the simple fact is that as a classical theory, large in scale and with a gravity g
report post as inappropriate
When it comes to classical relativity theory, the simple fact is that as a classical theory, large in scale and with a gravity g
report post as inappropriate
oops, the carrot sign problem --- so to continue
g much less than 1/L_p, is the correct theory or effective theory. There is not going to be some reversal of relativity theory, any more than there is going to be some reversal of biological evolution in favor of a divine creation idea.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
g much less than 1/L_p, is the correct theory or effective theory. There is not going to be some reversal of relativity theory, any more than there is going to be some reversal of biological evolution in favor of a divine creation idea.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Certainly not 'reversal' Lawrence, but absolutely certainly a fine tuning or improvement of parts of Relativity. Possibly the parts that we haven't yet observed (contraction?) and still give rise to controversies over paradox, sagnac etc, and maintain the divide with QFT, i.e. SR's Equivalence.
Is your system of S-matrices not similar in some ways to Einsteins 1954 'infinitely many spaces in relative motion'. (- shortly after he said we needed that 'different way of thinking').
This would confirm SR and Lorentz invarience 'Locally', which is precisely what we observe, Locality being what Einstein was forced to give up by Bohm & Bell to preserve Reality.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Is your system of S-matrices not similar in some ways to Einsteins 1954 'infinitely many spaces in relative motion'. (- shortly after he said we needed that 'different way of thinking').
This would confirm SR and Lorentz invarience 'Locally', which is precisely what we observe, Locality being what Einstein was forced to give up by Bohm & Bell to preserve Reality.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Some of the questions that a good theory should have credible answers for that are connected to a structural reality that corresponds to observations are:
Why does it appear that there is a maximum velocity (C) and what is the mechanism that causes it?
Why can matter travel at any velocity from zero to about that maximum velocity (has a continuously variable multi-amplitude velocity function), but energy has a single amplitude velocity function and what mechanism causes these things to work that way?
Why is energy’s single motion amplitude level equal to the maximum level (C) and not some other value and what is its cause?
Why does matter have a rest mass/inertia effect while energy only has a much smaller dynamically variable mass effect and what is the structure that causes these things?
Why does energy possess its frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects and why are they locked into the specific structural relationship so that an increase in frequency generates a decrease in wavelength and an increase in dynamic mass effect so that all photons with a specific frequency will have the same specific wavelength and dynamic mass effects and what mechanism causes it to work this way?
Why do some very fast and very small scale interactions such as collisions between matter particles cause not just a single outcome, but have a range of outcomes that have different probabilities of happening and what mechanism causes it to work this way?
Why does energy travel at the maximum velocity (C) and has very little mass effect and can have any size (wavelength), but when the velocity of matter is increased to near (C), its mass greatly increases, so that it would be infinitely great at (C) and its volume greatly decreases so that it would be zero at (C) and what is the cause of this effect?
Why are some matter particles stable while others decay into other particles and/or energy photons in a short time and why is the decay time different for different particles? What causes this to be this way?
report post as inappropriate
Why does it appear that there is a maximum velocity (C) and what is the mechanism that causes it?
Why can matter travel at any velocity from zero to about that maximum velocity (has a continuously variable multi-amplitude velocity function), but energy has a single amplitude velocity function and what mechanism causes these things to work that way?
Why is energy’s single motion amplitude level equal to the maximum level (C) and not some other value and what is its cause?
Why does matter have a rest mass/inertia effect while energy only has a much smaller dynamically variable mass effect and what is the structure that causes these things?
Why does energy possess its frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects and why are they locked into the specific structural relationship so that an increase in frequency generates a decrease in wavelength and an increase in dynamic mass effect so that all photons with a specific frequency will have the same specific wavelength and dynamic mass effects and what mechanism causes it to work this way?
Why do some very fast and very small scale interactions such as collisions between matter particles cause not just a single outcome, but have a range of outcomes that have different probabilities of happening and what mechanism causes it to work this way?
Why does energy travel at the maximum velocity (C) and has very little mass effect and can have any size (wavelength), but when the velocity of matter is increased to near (C), its mass greatly increases, so that it would be infinitely great at (C) and its volume greatly decreases so that it would be zero at (C) and what is the cause of this effect?
Why are some matter particles stable while others decay into other particles and/or energy photons in a short time and why is the decay time different for different particles? What causes this to be this way?
report post as inappropriate
Hello,
Think about spheres dear Paul, you shall see more clear and you shall have answers.....don't complicate the simplicity.
Respectfull
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Think about spheres dear Paul, you shall see more clear and you shall have answers.....don't complicate the simplicity.
Respectfull
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Hi Paul
Good list. I'm sure you have some answers, Can I postulate a few for you to correct?
Q; Why does it appear that there is a maximum velocity (C) and what is the mechanism that causes it? (and why 'C').
There must be a limit to the oscillation rate of whatever is oscillating.
Q; Why can matter travel at any velocity from zero to about that maximum velocity..(.but energy only at 'C')?
All motion is only relative. Perhaps there are 3 basic states Background(sub?) energy, kinetic energy, and 'mass' energy.
Q; Why does matter have a rest mass/inertia effect.. Quantum gyroscopics?
Q; Why does energy possess its frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects and why are they locked into the specific structural relationship so that an increase in frequency..etc.
Each wave represents an amount of energy, cram them together...?
Q; Why do some very fast and very small scale interactions such as collisions between matter particles cause not just a single outcome, but have a range of outcomes that have different probabilities of happening and what mechanism causes it to work this way?
Waves. i.e. constant change, - It depends on what the angle/hight/density is at the interaction point.
Q; Why does energy travel at the maximum velocity (C) and has very little mass effect and can have any size (wavelength), but when the velocity of matter is increased to near (C), its mass greatly increases...etc?
Particles condensed from the energy field from excitation due to relative motion.
Q; Why are some matter particles stable while others decay into other particles and/or energy photons in a short time and why is the decay time different for different particles? What causes this to be this way?
Pass. I suspect 'decay' may not be the best description of a 'phase change'. Or perhaps it's 'Spheres'? - or we don't have to worry about Causality.
How about another; Why do we find EM waves doing 'c' irrespective of the motion of both the emitter and receiver? and why can't we unify SR and QFT.
Perhaps because wave energy is absorbed by local oscillators and re-emitted (Doppler shifted) to always do 'c' locally?
Any horrors there?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Good list. I'm sure you have some answers, Can I postulate a few for you to correct?
Q; Why does it appear that there is a maximum velocity (C) and what is the mechanism that causes it? (and why 'C').
There must be a limit to the oscillation rate of whatever is oscillating.
Q; Why can matter travel at any velocity from zero to about that maximum velocity..(.but energy only at 'C')?
All motion is only relative. Perhaps there are 3 basic states Background(sub?) energy, kinetic energy, and 'mass' energy.
Q; Why does matter have a rest mass/inertia effect.. Quantum gyroscopics?
Q; Why does energy possess its frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects and why are they locked into the specific structural relationship so that an increase in frequency..etc.
Each wave represents an amount of energy, cram them together...?
Q; Why do some very fast and very small scale interactions such as collisions between matter particles cause not just a single outcome, but have a range of outcomes that have different probabilities of happening and what mechanism causes it to work this way?
Waves. i.e. constant change, - It depends on what the angle/hight/density is at the interaction point.
Q; Why does energy travel at the maximum velocity (C) and has very little mass effect and can have any size (wavelength), but when the velocity of matter is increased to near (C), its mass greatly increases...etc?
Particles condensed from the energy field from excitation due to relative motion.
Q; Why are some matter particles stable while others decay into other particles and/or energy photons in a short time and why is the decay time different for different particles? What causes this to be this way?
Pass. I suspect 'decay' may not be the best description of a 'phase change'. Or perhaps it's 'Spheres'? - or we don't have to worry about Causality.
How about another; Why do we find EM waves doing 'c' irrespective of the motion of both the emitter and receiver? and why can't we unify SR and QFT.
Perhaps because wave energy is absorbed by local oscillators and re-emitted (Doppler shifted) to always do 'c' locally?
Any horrors there?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Paul,
You need to read a basic text on relativity. The speed of light does not act in a causal fashion, but is a symmetry of spacetime.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
You need to read a basic text on relativity. The speed of light does not act in a causal fashion, but is a symmetry of spacetime.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Time is not part of the space, quantum space is timeless. There is no need to introduce ether back into physics, as it is a wrong concept. There is no fluid filling up cosmic space. Cosmic space is an energy field that can be accurately described with quantum space. Quantum space has a density that correlates with given amount of matter in a given volume of quantum space. Density of space determinates its curvature. Density of quantum space explains gravity without hypothetical gravitational waves. See more on file attached.
yours amrit
attachments: Original_Solution_of_Gravity.pdf
report post as inappropriate
yours amrit
attachments: Original_Solution_of_Gravity.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Hi Amrit
Please explain, if quantum space is timeless, what happens when a planet passes close by, and properties locally change, then change back again? How can there can be sequence, change, or even quantum motion without time to measure it by?
I read your paper. The 'density variation' thesis is certainly one of the most intuitive and popular, but you don't seem to address the basic 'inverse Boyles Law' issue, shed any new light on the quantum mechnism, or get any closer to falsifiability. Addressing these points is where the value will lie.
But the only poor concept comes in denying an 'ether' while proposing an energy field, which I suspect is political. Ether is now what ether does. It IS an energy field, but call it what you wish. The old 'all pervading' ether of Maxwell was originally updated by Fresnel. My own ether seems now the most common, a 'dark energy' field medium, a background 3rd frame. EM waves can only have an absolute speed 'c' wrt this. Fizeau, Sagnac, M&M, Miller, Wang, all also witness this and will always be a thorn in the side of any 'non ether' theory of Equivalence. That's where the ultimate unification solution must lie; a quantum Equivalence mechanism. with both Locality and Reality.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Please explain, if quantum space is timeless, what happens when a planet passes close by, and properties locally change, then change back again? How can there can be sequence, change, or even quantum motion without time to measure it by?
I read your paper. The 'density variation' thesis is certainly one of the most intuitive and popular, but you don't seem to address the basic 'inverse Boyles Law' issue, shed any new light on the quantum mechnism, or get any closer to falsifiability. Addressing these points is where the value will lie.
But the only poor concept comes in denying an 'ether' while proposing an energy field, which I suspect is political. Ether is now what ether does. It IS an energy field, but call it what you wish. The old 'all pervading' ether of Maxwell was originally updated by Fresnel. My own ether seems now the most common, a 'dark energy' field medium, a background 3rd frame. EM waves can only have an absolute speed 'c' wrt this. Fizeau, Sagnac, M&M, Miller, Wang, all also witness this and will always be a thorn in the side of any 'non ether' theory of Equivalence. That's where the ultimate unification solution must lie; a quantum Equivalence mechanism. with both Locality and Reality.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter,
my idea of density of quantum space will be developed by my research group.
We will publish results in peer reviewed journal, so you will know.
Regardig that universe is timeless, see my article on file attached.
Yours Amrit
attachments: 2_Physical_Time_Is_Run_Of_Clocks__Quantum_Dream.pdf
report post as inappropriate
my idea of density of quantum space will be developed by my research group.
We will publish results in peer reviewed journal, so you will know.
Regardig that universe is timeless, see my article on file attached.
Yours Amrit
attachments: 2_Physical_Time_Is_Run_Of_Clocks__Quantum_Dream.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Hi Amrit
I wish you luck and look forward to your paper. I gather the Peer review journals are now publishing less than 1 in 100, so are unfortunately far from representative. It may help if you check a little closer for typographical/ linguistic errors, it would be better to use 'tick', as 'thick' can mean unintellegent! This includes in your first reference; "What makes us thick."
I note no refutation of my point on bringing back 'ether' as a quantum field - which is of course central to this article.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
I wish you luck and look forward to your paper. I gather the Peer review journals are now publishing less than 1 in 100, so are unfortunately far from representative. It may help if you check a little closer for typographical/ linguistic errors, it would be better to use 'tick', as 'thick' can mean unintellegent! This includes in your first reference; "What makes us thick."
I note no refutation of my point on bringing back 'ether' as a quantum field - which is of course central to this article.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Steve,
I have thought about spheres. Every point on or in a rotating sphere generally follows a two-dimensional enclosed path (except possibly the center points). The structural point of a matter particle follows a three-dimensional enclosed path. It is a somewhat more complex path structure. The simplicity is just a little more complicated in some cases. Spheres are important...
view entire post
I have thought about spheres. Every point on or in a rotating sphere generally follows a two-dimensional enclosed path (except possibly the center points). The structural point of a matter particle follows a three-dimensional enclosed path. It is a somewhat more complex path structure. The simplicity is just a little more complicated in some cases. Spheres are important...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Dear Paul,
Interesting point of vue.
But you don't insert the evolution.
Thus you are not right simply.
The complexity is in the biological lifes.....
I don't understand why you are always sure in fact, have you conclusions, No .
Have you datas, No
Are you right No evidently because simply it's an other parameter which is in your interpretation of the Universe.
The Spherization is an evolutive point of vue .And thus the ^perfect spheer are in the uniqueness.Thus only the future universal sphere will be a perfect sphere and too the quantum uniqueness is perfects spheres.
I think you analyze localy simply, and you don't see the time evolution thus you don't see the real globality.
Thus you are not right but you can improve your interpretation and thusd your universality if you analyze all centers of interests in fact .
You live on a sphere, you think and see with spheres and spheroids, you are composed by spheres, your light is a sphere, your turn around a sphere, you are inside an universal sphere ....and you search still some explainations without realism .....Be more rational simply and accept the evolution .
You are not right Paul ,you are not right .
Frankly and sphericaly yours
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Interesting point of vue.
But you don't insert the evolution.
Thus you are not right simply.
The complexity is in the biological lifes.....
I don't understand why you are always sure in fact, have you conclusions, No .
Have you datas, No
Are you right No evidently because simply it's an other parameter which is in your interpretation of the Universe.
The Spherization is an evolutive point of vue .And thus the ^perfect spheer are in the uniqueness.Thus only the future universal sphere will be a perfect sphere and too the quantum uniqueness is perfects spheres.
I think you analyze localy simply, and you don't see the time evolution thus you don't see the real globality.
Thus you are not right but you can improve your interpretation and thusd your universality if you analyze all centers of interests in fact .
You live on a sphere, you think and see with spheres and spheroids, you are composed by spheres, your light is a sphere, your turn around a sphere, you are inside an universal sphere ....and you search still some explainations without realism .....Be more rational simply and accept the evolution .
You are not right Paul ,you are not right .
Frankly and sphericaly yours
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Hi Peter,
Yes “thick” should be “tick”. With introducing idea of space being out of quanta, the believe of space-time being a fundamental arena of the universe has no theoretical basis any more. How time can be 4-th dimension of a quanta ? Definitely cosmic space is timeless. My research group introduces density of space that is defined with amount of matter in a given volume of space. Density of space is defining its curvature. Material bodies move into direction of lover density of space. Gravitational waves are fictitious entities.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
Yes “thick” should be “tick”. With introducing idea of space being out of quanta, the believe of space-time being a fundamental arena of the universe has no theoretical basis any more. How time can be 4-th dimension of a quanta ? Definitely cosmic space is timeless. My research group introduces density of space that is defined with amount of matter in a given volume of space. Density of space is defining its curvature. Material bodies move into direction of lover density of space. Gravitational waves are fictitious entities.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
Peter,
All photons regardless of frequency travel at the same speed of C, so the oscillation rate or frequency is not connected directly to the photon’s velocity in the first three dimensions and so far man does not have any reason to believe that there really is a maximum frequency. The oscillation rate is determined by the photon’s fourth vector (dimensional) velocity and man has no...
view entire post
All photons regardless of frequency travel at the same speed of C, so the oscillation rate or frequency is not connected directly to the photon’s velocity in the first three dimensions and so far man does not have any reason to believe that there really is a maximum frequency. The oscillation rate is determined by the photon’s fourth vector (dimensional) velocity and man has no...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Peter, you say: Time is the result of motion through space.
Please explain how atom, photon, electron, massive body or stellar object creates time by its motion?
Time is not result of motion.
Time is result of measurement of motion in timeless universe.
Time t we gain by measurment with clocks.
Read my articles on file attached and you will see that in my view on time there is no contradiction. On the contrary all contradictions regarding motion and time are resolved.
Yours Amrit
attachments: 2_Time_is_run_of_Clocks_in_Timeless_Universe_FQXI.pdf, 2_In_what_way_are_related_Psychological_Time_and_Physical_Time_SORLI_2010.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Please explain how atom, photon, electron, massive body or stellar object creates time by its motion?
Time is not result of motion.
Time is result of measurement of motion in timeless universe.
Time t we gain by measurment with clocks.
Read my articles on file attached and you will see that in my view on time there is no contradiction. On the contrary all contradictions regarding motion and time are resolved.
Yours Amrit
attachments: 2_Time_is_run_of_Clocks_in_Timeless_Universe_FQXI.pdf, 2_In_what_way_are_related_Psychological_Time_and_Physical_Time_SORLI_2010.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Steve,
I also looked into evolution and I found that the structure of the world outside of living creatures works contrary to evolution in that it works toward a state of entropy that breaks down complex, organized, high potential energy structures. This can be easily seen just by looking at the complex structures that man makes. Instead of evolving into still higher forms after they are...
view entire post
I also looked into evolution and I found that the structure of the world outside of living creatures works contrary to evolution in that it works toward a state of entropy that breaks down complex, organized, high potential energy structures. This can be easily seen just by looking at the complex structures that man makes. Instead of evolving into still higher forms after they are...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Hi dear Paul,
You are not right , still and always, you block yourself .
You speak a lot and of course it's not a reason to have right .
I think you confound all , time, mass, evolution, spirituality, ....you have difficulties to be synchronized with the foundamentals.
You know Paul ,the vanity is not the sister of tghe spirituality.
You can utilize all words you want.Never that will change .
You are vanitious and that's all, I am frank .
You want speak about evolution , I class all since the age of 15 , thus let's begin, with H if you want 13.7 or4.5 or3.6 all .It's not a problem.
You speak like that because at the begining I was frank and of course when people are frank and furthermore are right, that is not a pleasure for you.
I write poems and theaters in french , thus if you want I will translate , like that you sall see others people speak well in their language.
You are funny , just because you are vanitious.
I invite you to restudy the foundamentals you know Newton, this mass and thus perhaps you sall understand the relativity and the gravitation , and the evolution of SPHERES .
8 dimensions structures not but You are laughing I hope , ahhahahah I am laughing.
8 dimensions OH MY GOD.....You confound all ....me I have proof hihihi you no .
8 dimensions ....and after what , you have a job to say this stupidity to the sciences community or what 8 dimensions .and of course dear Paul you have invented too a time machine .
I invite you to study horticulture in 3D , really .You shall see more clear.and of course the sceinces community like that will know the foundamentals.
You don't understand the gravity, the evolution and the relativity , sorry but I am frank, like many dhere you don't understand,and the most impressing, you think you are right and you continue your inutility.
Frankly and sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
You are not right , still and always, you block yourself .
You speak a lot and of course it's not a reason to have right .
I think you confound all , time, mass, evolution, spirituality, ....you have difficulties to be synchronized with the foundamentals.
You know Paul ,the vanity is not the sister of tghe spirituality.
You can utilize all words you want.Never that will change .
You are vanitious and that's all, I am frank .
You want speak about evolution , I class all since the age of 15 , thus let's begin, with H if you want 13.7 or4.5 or3.6 all .It's not a problem.
You speak like that because at the begining I was frank and of course when people are frank and furthermore are right, that is not a pleasure for you.
I write poems and theaters in french , thus if you want I will translate , like that you sall see others people speak well in their language.
You are funny , just because you are vanitious.
I invite you to restudy the foundamentals you know Newton, this mass and thus perhaps you sall understand the relativity and the gravitation , and the evolution of SPHERES .
8 dimensions structures not but You are laughing I hope , ahhahahah I am laughing.
8 dimensions OH MY GOD.....You confound all ....me I have proof hihihi you no .
8 dimensions ....and after what , you have a job to say this stupidity to the sciences community or what 8 dimensions .and of course dear Paul you have invented too a time machine .
I invite you to study horticulture in 3D , really .You shall see more clear.and of course the sceinces community like that will know the foundamentals.
You don't understand the gravity, the evolution and the relativity , sorry but I am frank, like many dhere you don't understand,and the most impressing, you think you are right and you continue your inutility.
Frankly and sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Amrit,
Your argument is sort of like the one about: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see or hear it fall (record it), did it really fall? The answer is yes it fell and its fall is recorded in the continuum of motion that it and its fall are a part of. When a given motion with a given motion amplitude travels through a distance in space, it generates a period that...
view entire post
Your argument is sort of like the one about: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see or hear it fall (record it), did it really fall? The answer is yes it fell and its fall is recorded in the continuum of motion that it and its fall are a part of. When a given motion with a given motion amplitude travels through a distance in space, it generates a period that...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Dear Paul
tree is falling in space only and not in time.
With clock/time we measure duration of tree falling.
Tree is falling in sequences t0, t1, t2,……….tn. Numerical order of this sequences we measure with clocks. Numerical order of tree falling exists without measuring it.
Duration of tree falling exist only when measured.
Duration of an event is result of measurement.
Clock/time is a measuring device for material change i.e. motion in the universe that itself is timeless.
See more on file attached.
Yours Amrit
attachments: 1_Analysis_of_Relation_between_Spacetime.......pdf
report post as inappropriate
tree is falling in space only and not in time.
With clock/time we measure duration of tree falling.
Tree is falling in sequences t0, t1, t2,……….tn. Numerical order of this sequences we measure with clocks. Numerical order of tree falling exists without measuring it.
Duration of tree falling exist only when measured.
Duration of an event is result of measurement.
Clock/time is a measuring device for material change i.e. motion in the universe that itself is timeless.
See more on file attached.
Yours Amrit
attachments: 1_Analysis_of_Relation_between_Spacetime.......pdf
report post as inappropriate
Amrit,
I read your reference, but I am not sure that I completely understand what you are saying. I have a few questions to which the answers may make things clearer to me. All motions in the below questions are at velocities way below C, so no relativistic effects need to be considered.
A_________________________B_________________________C
|| ||
Figure 1
1. Do you believe that a particle of matter can move from a given point A in space to another point B in space that is a distance of one meter from point A by traveling through the points that are between points A and B on the straight line between points A and B.
2. If you do, do you believe that the motion can be non-instantaneous, so that it first travels to the point that is in line between Points A and B that is the closest to point A and then to the next closest point to A and so forth until it ultimately reaches point B?
3. In figure 1 above, do you believe that it would be possible for two matter particles (one at point A and one at point C to simultaneously leave their respective starting points and travel toward point B such that the particle that left point A reaches point B at the point in the travel of the particle that left point C such that it reaches exactly the mid point between points B and C? (i.e., do you believe that it would be possible for the particle that left point A to travel 1 meter at twice the velocity of the particle that left point C).
4. If you do, what do you call the relationship between distance traveled D and the velocity V of each of these particles: D, A>B/Va and D, C>B/Vc, where D, A>B=the distance traveled from point A to Point B=(1 meter), Va=the velocity of the particle that left point A, and D, C>B=the distance traveled from point C to point B=(1 meter), Vc=the velocity of the particle that left point C. (i.e. What do you call the relationship D/V (the distance traveled by the matter particle divided by the particle’s velocity) of each particle)?
5. Do you believe that the relationship D/V of each of the particles mentioned in question 4 above would occur as a natural part of its motion through its traveled distance even if it is not measured?
report post as inappropriate
I read your reference, but I am not sure that I completely understand what you are saying. I have a few questions to which the answers may make things clearer to me. All motions in the below questions are at velocities way below C, so no relativistic effects need to be considered.
A_________________________B_________________________C
|| ||
Figure 1
1. Do you believe that a particle of matter can move from a given point A in space to another point B in space that is a distance of one meter from point A by traveling through the points that are between points A and B on the straight line between points A and B.
2. If you do, do you believe that the motion can be non-instantaneous, so that it first travels to the point that is in line between Points A and B that is the closest to point A and then to the next closest point to A and so forth until it ultimately reaches point B?
3. In figure 1 above, do you believe that it would be possible for two matter particles (one at point A and one at point C to simultaneously leave their respective starting points and travel toward point B such that the particle that left point A reaches point B at the point in the travel of the particle that left point C such that it reaches exactly the mid point between points B and C? (i.e., do you believe that it would be possible for the particle that left point A to travel 1 meter at twice the velocity of the particle that left point C).
4. If you do, what do you call the relationship between distance traveled D and the velocity V of each of these particles: D, A>B/Va and D, C>B/Vc, where D, A>B=the distance traveled from point A to Point B=(1 meter), Va=the velocity of the particle that left point A, and D, C>B=the distance traveled from point C to point B=(1 meter), Vc=the velocity of the particle that left point C. (i.e. What do you call the relationship D/V (the distance traveled by the matter particle divided by the particle’s velocity) of each particle)?
5. Do you believe that the relationship D/V of each of the particles mentioned in question 4 above would occur as a natural part of its motion through its traveled distance even if it is not measured?
report post as inappropriate
Amrit,
In my previous post figure 1 did not display properly. The line below the line with the A, B, and C on it should have a vertical line at the A followed by a less than sign, then several dashes, then the label (1 Mile), then several dashes, then a greater than sign, then a vertical line at B, then another vertical line at B, then a less than sign, then several dashes, then the label (1 Mile), then several dashes, then a greater than sign, then a vertical line at C. This was to show that the distance from A to B was 1 mile and the distance from B to C was 1 mile. It showed up ok when I pasted it into the Add a New Post data area, but displayed with only the vertical lines as you see them after sending the post. I guess it doesn’t like dashes, or greater and less than signs.
report post as inappropriate
In my previous post figure 1 did not display properly. The line below the line with the A, B, and C on it should have a vertical line at the A followed by a less than sign, then several dashes, then the label (1 Mile), then several dashes, then a greater than sign, then a vertical line at B, then another vertical line at B, then a less than sign, then several dashes, then the label (1 Mile), then several dashes, then a greater than sign, then a vertical line at C. This was to show that the distance from A to B was 1 mile and the distance from B to C was 1 mile. It showed up ok when I pasted it into the Add a New Post data area, but displayed with only the vertical lines as you see them after sending the post. I guess it doesn’t like dashes, or greater and less than signs.
report post as inappropriate
To All with respect:
Can we see or measure a photon traveling away from us in a vacuum? I know we can see/measure photons coming towards us.
Light can bend or curve because of gravity.
Is there a correlation of the amount a given amount of matter,that can be converted into maximum photon emission and the maximum amount that this given amount of matter can curve/bend/attract photons?
Photons traveling close enough to a black hole's event horizon will fall inwards and the photons(existing as a photon) cannot escape.
There is an amount of pull from dark energy in OUR universe.
There are photons striking our earth with a certain amount of energy or push.At the same time the mass of the sun is pulling at the earth.
Could there be a force at the backside of a photon traveling away from us that could exert a "pull" or "gravity".Could the ass end of a photon be a "graviton" or "dark energy"?!
Please give your opinions,I have a migraine already.
I'm not "frank"!I am ,of course!
Mr.Ed
report post as inappropriate
Can we see or measure a photon traveling away from us in a vacuum? I know we can see/measure photons coming towards us.
Light can bend or curve because of gravity.
Is there a correlation of the amount a given amount of matter,that can be converted into maximum photon emission and the maximum amount that this given amount of matter can curve/bend/attract photons?
Photons traveling close enough to a black hole's event horizon will fall inwards and the photons(existing as a photon) cannot escape.
There is an amount of pull from dark energy in OUR universe.
There are photons striking our earth with a certain amount of energy or push.At the same time the mass of the sun is pulling at the earth.
Could there be a force at the backside of a photon traveling away from us that could exert a "pull" or "gravity".Could the ass end of a photon be a "graviton" or "dark energy"?!
Please give your opinions,I have a migraine already.
I'm not "frank"!I am ,of course!
Mr.Ed
report post as inappropriate
Interesting questions Mr Ed. Opinions?; Short answer; No. Thoughts;
"Can we see or measure a photon traveling away from us in a vacuum?"
No. (otherwise we see ourselves everywhere!). No em wave motion rearwards.
"Light can bend or curve because of gravity".
Space bends or curves, EM waves travel in a straight line through local space. But from any observers frame Schrodinger sphere surfaces and light cones are distorted by local curved space.
"Is there a correlation of the amount a given amount of matter, that can be converted into maximum photon emission and the maximum amount that this given amount of matter can curve/bend/attract photons?"
Yes. Use e=mc2, GR and Newtons laws.
"Photons traveling close enough to a black hole's event horizon will fall inwards and the photons(existing as a photon) cannot escape."
Perhaps. - Read Hawking. - and we know too litle about light, plus see below.
"There is an amount of pull from dark energy in OUR universe. There are photons striking our earth with a certain amount of energy or push. At the same time the mass of the sun is pulling at the earth."
Dangerous assumptions. Dark matter, probably propagated from dark energy, is considered to locally pull. As photons have zero mass he 'push' is arguable, etc. but I'll follow your thoughts.
"Could there be a force at the backside of a photon traveling away from us that could exert a "pull" or "gravity". Could the ass end of a photon be a "graviton" or "dark energy"?!"
I struggle to find any logical or observational/empirical evidence. Also consider this; If we're ever to unite physics particles can't be conserved. (read Penrose etc). We've only ever witnessed photons as short range energy concentrations condesed from the field so, despite aged assumption, it's foolish to believe more. As all particles are oscillating ('spin') energy of something it may be that photons have gravity, but the evidence points to baryonic particles etc NOT travelling at 'c' being those that 'bend' local space. Probably something like the Dirac hole in the Dirac sea. When the particles energy is re-absorbed ('anihilation'!?) the sea would flatten out (but Shrodinger energy waves may still pass through it).
Now I'm starting to get a headache too. I belive Occam, Einstein and Feynman -Physics is simple, it should able to be explained to a barmaid, and 'nature will always find a simpler way than we can imagine'.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
"Can we see or measure a photon traveling away from us in a vacuum?"
No. (otherwise we see ourselves everywhere!). No em wave motion rearwards.
"Light can bend or curve because of gravity".
Space bends or curves, EM waves travel in a straight line through local space. But from any observers frame Schrodinger sphere surfaces and light cones are distorted by local curved space.
"Is there a correlation of the amount a given amount of matter, that can be converted into maximum photon emission and the maximum amount that this given amount of matter can curve/bend/attract photons?"
Yes. Use e=mc2, GR and Newtons laws.
"Photons traveling close enough to a black hole's event horizon will fall inwards and the photons(existing as a photon) cannot escape."
Perhaps. - Read Hawking. - and we know too litle about light, plus see below.
"There is an amount of pull from dark energy in OUR universe. There are photons striking our earth with a certain amount of energy or push. At the same time the mass of the sun is pulling at the earth."
Dangerous assumptions. Dark matter, probably propagated from dark energy, is considered to locally pull. As photons have zero mass he 'push' is arguable, etc. but I'll follow your thoughts.
"Could there be a force at the backside of a photon traveling away from us that could exert a "pull" or "gravity". Could the ass end of a photon be a "graviton" or "dark energy"?!"
I struggle to find any logical or observational/empirical evidence. Also consider this; If we're ever to unite physics particles can't be conserved. (read Penrose etc). We've only ever witnessed photons as short range energy concentrations condesed from the field so, despite aged assumption, it's foolish to believe more. As all particles are oscillating ('spin') energy of something it may be that photons have gravity, but the evidence points to baryonic particles etc NOT travelling at 'c' being those that 'bend' local space. Probably something like the Dirac hole in the Dirac sea. When the particles energy is re-absorbed ('anihilation'!?) the sea would flatten out (but Shrodinger energy waves may still pass through it).
Now I'm starting to get a headache too. I belive Occam, Einstein and Feynman -Physics is simple, it should able to be explained to a barmaid, and 'nature will always find a simpler way than we can imagine'.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Thank you Peter!
I would go back and read but, at my age I'm running out of"Time" and needed some "crib notes" before I depart.I might need them in some "dimension".Right now though, I am just "fine man".
Really,Thanks.Now,I am being "frank"!
report post as inappropriate
I would go back and read but, at my age I'm running out of"Time" and needed some "crib notes" before I depart.I might need them in some "dimension".Right now though, I am just "fine man".
Really,Thanks.Now,I am being "frank"!
report post as inappropriate
Paul
an object moves from A to B in space only and not in time.
Velocity of the particle is derived from numerical order of its motion that we gain with clocks. Numerical order t0, t1, t2...tn of a physical event we measure with a clock. A sequence t-1 is “before” sequence t equivalently to natural number n-1 is before natural number n . Numerical order to, t1, t2....tn of a physical event has no duration. It runs in a timeless space where physical time is run of clocks. Velocity v of a physical event is derived from its numerical order t0, t1,t2...tn.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
an object moves from A to B in space only and not in time.
Velocity of the particle is derived from numerical order of its motion that we gain with clocks. Numerical order t0, t1, t2...tn of a physical event we measure with a clock. A sequence t-1 is “before” sequence t equivalently to natural number n-1 is before natural number n . Numerical order to, t1, t2....tn of a physical event has no duration. It runs in a timeless space where physical time is run of clocks. Velocity v of a physical event is derived from its numerical order t0, t1,t2...tn.
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
Paul, physics needs only Clocks, Time can be abandoned.
yours amrit
attachments: Physics_needs_only_clocks_time_can_be_abandoned.pdf
report post as inappropriate
yours amrit
attachments: Physics_needs_only_clocks_time_can_be_abandoned.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Dear Paul, here you have Ten Reasons to restitute Concept of Time in Physics with Concept of Numeric Order
1.with clocks we measure numeric order t0,t1,t2…tn of physical events
2.t1 is “before” t2 equivalently as number 1 is before number 2
3.in Special Theory of Relativity fourth coordinate X4 is spatial to:
X4 = i x c x tn
4.numeric order of physical events runs in a timeless space
5.fundamental unit of numeric order is Planck time tp
6.velocity v of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn: v = d/tn
7.frequency of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn:
frequency = 1/tn
8.numeric order of events running in timeless space has no duration
9.a sense of duration is result experiencing numeric order of events through the psychological time past-present-future
10.symbol t in physics represents numeric order tn
Out of developing concept of space-time into the concept of timeless space where with clock we measure numeric order of t0,t1,t2…tn physical events follows:
1.paradox of time travel is resolved. No time travel is possible. One can travel only in space.
2.paradox of twins is resolved. Both grow older in a timeless space.
3.Zeno problems of motion are resolved: motion happens in space only and not in time
4.for immediate physical events as EPR and others numeric order is zero: tn = 0
5.for physical events which happening requires “tick” of a clock numeric order is more than zero
6.at the Planck scale information and energy transfer is immediate. Numerical order of events at Planck scale is zero: tn = 0
7.at the photon scale information and energy transfer has velocity c, numeric order tn is more than zero
8.at the larger scale then photon information and energy transfer has velocity lower than c, numeric order tn is more than zero
report post as inappropriate
1.with clocks we measure numeric order t0,t1,t2…tn of physical events
2.t1 is “before” t2 equivalently as number 1 is before number 2
3.in Special Theory of Relativity fourth coordinate X4 is spatial to:
X4 = i x c x tn
4.numeric order of physical events runs in a timeless space
5.fundamental unit of numeric order is Planck time tp
6.velocity v of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn: v = d/tn
7.frequency of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn:
frequency = 1/tn
8.numeric order of events running in timeless space has no duration
9.a sense of duration is result experiencing numeric order of events through the psychological time past-present-future
10.symbol t in physics represents numeric order tn
Out of developing concept of space-time into the concept of timeless space where with clock we measure numeric order of t0,t1,t2…tn physical events follows:
1.paradox of time travel is resolved. No time travel is possible. One can travel only in space.
2.paradox of twins is resolved. Both grow older in a timeless space.
3.Zeno problems of motion are resolved: motion happens in space only and not in time
4.for immediate physical events as EPR and others numeric order is zero: tn = 0
5.for physical events which happening requires “tick” of a clock numeric order is more than zero
6.at the Planck scale information and energy transfer is immediate. Numerical order of events at Planck scale is zero: tn = 0
7.at the photon scale information and energy transfer has velocity c, numeric order tn is more than zero
8.at the larger scale then photon information and energy transfer has velocity lower than c, numeric order tn is more than zero
report post as inappropriate
Amrit,
Since the planck distance is considered the smallest distance possible and larger distances are considered multiples of the planck distance and the planck time is considered the smallest time period possible and longer time periods are considered to be multiples of the planck time, it would seem that if position transfers occurred immediately (at infinite velocity) at the planck scale any larger scale motion would also occur at infinite velocity because larger distance position transfers would be multiples of the planck distance and planck time. As an example, an immediate transfer could only happen if the distance or the time equaled zero. If the planck distance equaled zero there would be no transfer of position. If the planck time equaled zero then any position transfer of any distance would equal a time of zero also because a transfer of two planck distances would take two planck times, which would be two times zero or zero. A larger scale transfer of one billion planck distances would take one billion planck times, which would be one billion times zero or zero. How do you explain this?
report post as inappropriate
Since the planck distance is considered the smallest distance possible and larger distances are considered multiples of the planck distance and the planck time is considered the smallest time period possible and longer time periods are considered to be multiples of the planck time, it would seem that if position transfers occurred immediately (at infinite velocity) at the planck scale any larger scale motion would also occur at infinite velocity because larger distance position transfers would be multiples of the planck distance and planck time. As an example, an immediate transfer could only happen if the distance or the time equaled zero. If the planck distance equaled zero there would be no transfer of position. If the planck time equaled zero then any position transfer of any distance would equal a time of zero also because a transfer of two planck distances would take two planck times, which would be two times zero or zero. A larger scale transfer of one billion planck distances would take one billion planck times, which would be one billion times zero or zero. How do you explain this?
report post as inappropriate
Paul,
quantum space is made out of Quanta of Space QS that have a volume of Planck.
In quantum space information and energy transfer are immediate.
We publish an article about that in Physics Essays - AIP.
see file attached
yours amrit
attachments: 1_According_to_the_Formalism_d__v_x_t__Spacetime_is_Timeless.pdf, Nonlocality_and_Symetrized_Quantum_Potential.pdf
report post as inappropriate
quantum space is made out of Quanta of Space QS that have a volume of Planck.
In quantum space information and energy transfer are immediate.
We publish an article about that in Physics Essays - AIP.
see file attached
yours amrit
attachments: 1_According_to_the_Formalism_d__v_x_t__Spacetime_is_Timeless.pdf, Nonlocality_and_Symetrized_Quantum_Potential.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Amrit,
I looked at your paper titled According to the Formalism d = v x t Space-time is Timeless. I noticed an error in the formula on the next to the last line of the second paragraph in the introduction. You have t (sub) p=c/l (sub) p (If I use subscripts or postscripts in Microsoft Word they don’t transfer to FQXI properly so I had to give it that way. So, t (sub) p is the t with the...
view entire post
I looked at your paper titled According to the Formalism d = v x t Space-time is Timeless. I noticed an error in the formula on the next to the last line of the second paragraph in the introduction. You have t (sub) p=c/l (sub) p (If I use subscripts or postscripts in Microsoft Word they don’t transfer to FQXI properly so I had to give it that way. So, t (sub) p is the t with the...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
That has no sense all that Paul , no sense your velocities, your infinities, your dimensions, no sense in an universal generality.
You insert falses parameters and referentials thus you do not understand the walls and the difference between the physicality and the unknown.
To have a spirituality is not to be right.
Don't be in this road if you want understand the physical 3D in evolution.
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
You insert falses parameters and referentials thus you do not understand the walls and the difference between the physicality and the unknown.
To have a spirituality is not to be right.
Don't be in this road if you want understand the physical 3D in evolution.
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Why I say that, I have nothing against you , be sure , I just critic simply.
In fact the linearity and the gravitational stability is not differenciated, thus that implies confusions about the limits like Planck and C.
Now of course you are right about the motion, but the duration is only in 1 entity and is constant .
Thus of course your interpretation of the minimal distance, if we consider the linearity and the stability of the gravity,is not sufficient.
Indeed you are two main kinds of motion, rotations spinals aand orbitals and the linearity......the sense takes all its sense.....
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
In fact the linearity and the gravitational stability is not differenciated, thus that implies confusions about the limits like Planck and C.
Now of course you are right about the motion, but the duration is only in 1 entity and is constant .
Thus of course your interpretation of the minimal distance, if we consider the linearity and the stability of the gravity,is not sufficient.
Indeed you are two main kinds of motion, rotations spinals aand orbitals and the linearity......the sense takes all its sense.....
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dear Paul,
Planck time tp is a fundamental unit of numeric order of change that runs in the universe. Universe itself is timeless. The only time in the universe that exists is psychological time through which we experience change of the universe.
Yours Amrit
report post as inappropriate
Planck time tp is a fundamental unit of numeric order of change that runs in the universe. Universe itself is timeless. The only time in the universe that exists is psychological time through which we experience change of the universe.
Yours Amrit
report post as inappropriate
PS
Let’s take a photon is moving on the distance d between point A and point B of space. Distance d is composed out of Planck distances lp: d = sum of lp1+lp2…+lpn. The smallest distance photon can do on the way from A to B is lp. Numeric order of photon motion from lp1 to lp2 is a Planck time tp. Photon is moving exclusively in space and not in time. In space “before” and “after” exist...
view entire post
Let’s take a photon is moving on the distance d between point A and point B of space. Distance d is composed out of Planck distances lp: d = sum of lp1+lp2…+lpn. The smallest distance photon can do on the way from A to B is lp. Numeric order of photon motion from lp1 to lp2 is a Planck time tp. Photon is moving exclusively in space and not in time. In space “before” and “after” exist...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Steve,
I am glad that you have nothing against me and I also have nothing against you. As I told you before, you have the ability to see patterns that many others don’t see or ignore and I would like to help you to learn how to use that ability to gain an understanding of the world that will greatly surprise and enlighten you to the hidden things that exist that those without this ability...
view entire post
I am glad that you have nothing against me and I also have nothing against you. As I told you before, you have the ability to see patterns that many others don’t see or ignore and I would like to help you to learn how to use that ability to gain an understanding of the world that will greatly surprise and enlighten you to the hidden things that exist that those without this ability...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Amrit,
The word time has several parts to its customary meaning. One of the parts of the meaning of time is the concept of a period of time. A time period has a beginning point, an end point, and a continuation that exists from the beginning point to the end point. When a motion travels through a distance, it generates such a time period. The actual beginning of an entity’s motion is...
view entire post
The word time has several parts to its customary meaning. One of the parts of the meaning of time is the concept of a period of time. A time period has a beginning point, an end point, and a continuation that exists from the beginning point to the end point. When a motion travels through a distance, it generates such a time period. The actual beginning of an entity’s motion is...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Paul
I like your clarity in viewing motion as simple change of position, needing time, but, change wrt who or what? Does a particle stay motionless in space when a galaxy arrives and passes by? In an interstellar medium at 2.7 degrees, or dark energy field, it either is or is not in absolute motion wrt the background field.
The panic this generates in STR fans is not necessary. It's not time that's important but local motion. A particles motion, even a photon, can of course only ever be 'local' to where it is at any moment in time. Now consider we put it in a box in space, say a room in the space station. In that frame it travels at 'c' wrt the box. We know. We've measured it. But if we're watching it from space as the space station passes us we have to use the Lorentz transformation and contraction.
Why? Because the postulates of the STR say 'c' is constant and physics is the same everywhere and in every frame. It is however only an assumption that they also mean we can't observe a change of position happening at a different speed wrt our own frame. The light that reaches us informing us of the position of something at any time, ergo a new position after a time, always reaches us at 'c'. The edge of a shadow can appear to move across a curved surface at any speed lower or faster than 'c'.
If the photon in the box in the moving space station only does 'c' wrt the box, why on earth do we need to remove the ether if we are only ever informed of it's new position by information travelling and reaching us at 'c'?? We do not if reference frames really and local exist. Simply remember; a closed box can be perfectly described with a set of co-ordinates.
Causality is not affected as that information is not the same as carried by the subject photon or wave pattern itself. Einstein did indeed say in 1921 'space without ether is unthinkable'. The postulates of STR are fine, only a thoughtless additional assumption is incorrect, causing 100years of paradox and anomalies.
Each bunch of particles, box, planet, galaxy etc in relative motion has it's own reference frame through which em waves can only travel at 'c' locally. There is also a quantum phenomina and mechanism at the boundaries staring us in the face.
When em waves change speed (ie into a prism or water) they must always Doppler shift. This must be to for conservation of energy. The reverse must then also be true, when em waves are Doppler shifted it means they've changed speed - so must have moved between real physical reference frames.
I'd expect you to be able to see this Paul, though it seems most are too steeped in historic errors. Am I correct?
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
I like your clarity in viewing motion as simple change of position, needing time, but, change wrt who or what? Does a particle stay motionless in space when a galaxy arrives and passes by? In an interstellar medium at 2.7 degrees, or dark energy field, it either is or is not in absolute motion wrt the background field.
The panic this generates in STR fans is not necessary. It's not time that's important but local motion. A particles motion, even a photon, can of course only ever be 'local' to where it is at any moment in time. Now consider we put it in a box in space, say a room in the space station. In that frame it travels at 'c' wrt the box. We know. We've measured it. But if we're watching it from space as the space station passes us we have to use the Lorentz transformation and contraction.
Why? Because the postulates of the STR say 'c' is constant and physics is the same everywhere and in every frame. It is however only an assumption that they also mean we can't observe a change of position happening at a different speed wrt our own frame. The light that reaches us informing us of the position of something at any time, ergo a new position after a time, always reaches us at 'c'. The edge of a shadow can appear to move across a curved surface at any speed lower or faster than 'c'.
If the photon in the box in the moving space station only does 'c' wrt the box, why on earth do we need to remove the ether if we are only ever informed of it's new position by information travelling and reaching us at 'c'?? We do not if reference frames really and local exist. Simply remember; a closed box can be perfectly described with a set of co-ordinates.
Causality is not affected as that information is not the same as carried by the subject photon or wave pattern itself. Einstein did indeed say in 1921 'space without ether is unthinkable'. The postulates of STR are fine, only a thoughtless additional assumption is incorrect, causing 100years of paradox and anomalies.
Each bunch of particles, box, planet, galaxy etc in relative motion has it's own reference frame through which em waves can only travel at 'c' locally. There is also a quantum phenomina and mechanism at the boundaries staring us in the face.
When em waves change speed (ie into a prism or water) they must always Doppler shift. This must be to for conservation of energy. The reverse must then also be true, when em waves are Doppler shifted it means they've changed speed - so must have moved between real physical reference frames.
I'd expect you to be able to see this Paul, though it seems most are too steeped in historic errors. Am I correct?
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
.
Dears,
Energy and time are two sides of the same coin. Time is just elapsed in the inside of energized systems. Like energy, time means motion. If every bit of existent matter were perfectly stopped (relative to any reference), no time would be elapsed.
As any other bigness, time can be measured against a sample-pattern and is obviously relative.
Seems obvious, and it is...
report post as inappropriate
Dears,
Energy and time are two sides of the same coin. Time is just elapsed in the inside of energized systems. Like energy, time means motion. If every bit of existent matter were perfectly stopped (relative to any reference), no time would be elapsed.
As any other bigness, time can be measured against a sample-pattern and is obviously relative.
Seems obvious, and it is...
report post as inappropriate
The contraction and stretching/expansion of space, consistent with generally balanced attraction and repulsion creates distance in space and would generally incorporate quantum mechanical phenomena -- that is, consistent with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy. When space/energy is substantially more the same, then quantum gravity, electromagnetism, and gravity would then be able to manifest in variable, yet equivalent, forms.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Gravity and electromagnetism both pertain to distance in space, so it is critical to balance electromagnetic repulsion/expansion with gravitational contraction/attraction in any theory of quantum gravity.
Moreover, the contraction and stretching/expansion of space, consistent with generally balanced attraction and repulsion creates distance in space and would generally incorporate quantum mechanical phenomena -- that is, consistent with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy. When space/energy is substantially more the same, then quantum gravity, electromagnetism, and gravity would then be able to manifest in variable, yet equivalent, forms.
report post as inappropriate
Moreover, the contraction and stretching/expansion of space, consistent with generally balanced attraction and repulsion creates distance in space and would generally incorporate quantum mechanical phenomena -- that is, consistent with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy. When space/energy is substantially more the same, then quantum gravity, electromagnetism, and gravity would then be able to manifest in variable, yet equivalent, forms.
report post as inappropriate
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
GRAVITY AND SPACE
...
view entire post
--------------------
GRAVITY AND SPACE
...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Add a New Post