Theoretical physicists love to ask “what if” questions, to explore the limits of mathematical self-consistency, even--perhaps especially--when the questions they are asking fly in the face of conventional wisdom. A classic story of theoretical tinkering concerns the graviton, the hypothetical fundamental particle that carries the gravitational force. In general relativity, the graviton--like the photon--has no mass. But as far back as 1939, Markus Fiertz and Wolfgang Pauli became the first to ask a heretical question: could the graviton have a mass?

What they found was a surprisingly subtle answer. They were able to formulate a theory of massive gravity; the surprise was that the theory was mathematically unique. Usually, theoretical physicists can find many mathematically consistent ways to state related theories and have to rely on experiments or even aesthetic criteria to narrow down the scope of the possible. Hence the uniqueness of the Fierz-Pauli answer has been, for decades, a theoretical curiosity that tugs at the theorist’s intuition, tempting him to think that this rare mathematical uniqueness is a hint that this is a path worth following.

Following the Fierz-Pauli result, nothing much happened until the early 1970s. Then, there was a spate of study of massive gravity, with a roller coaster of results. First, van Dam, Veltman, and Zakharov looked at the theory and declared that, though self-consistent, the Fierz-Pauli theory could never describe our world. What they had discovered is a funny phenomenon now called the vDVZ discontinuity. This is the fact that the linear theory of Pauli and Fierz is completely disconnected from the physics of general relativity, even when the mass of the graviton is set to zero. The physical fact that underlies this disconnect is simple and surprising: adding a mass to the graviton gives it new degrees of freedom, going from the 2 “tensor” waves that characterize general relativistic waves to 5 modes--2 tensor, 2 vector, and 1 scalar--in the case of massive gravity. Adding the mass, like opening Pandora’s box, releases these extra modes in a way that can’t be undone: a theory with more degrees of freedom is simply different from the one that lacks them. These extra modes make gravity stronger, so we can tell for sure that gravity near us does not have these extra modes. Hence, if no way around this discontinuity could be found, the theory would be dead for good.

A couple of years later, though, a Russian physicist called Arkady Vainshtein found another unexpected surprise in massive gravity. The linear theory of Pauli and Fiertz was, he reasoned, not enough: linear perturbations are the start of a complete theory, but any real theory will also have non-linearities that can play an important role. So Vainshtein started checking what non-linearities would do to the apparently fatal vDVZ discontinuity. What he found was remarkable: the nonlinearities of the theory become stronger and stronger as the mass of the graviton shrinks. What this means is that when the graviton mass vanishes, the extra modes are completely frozen by their non-linearities, and the theory becomes compatible with general relativity after all! The idea is that if the graviton mass is small, this would force the extra modes to become non-linear in places, like our solar system, where there was a lot of energy density around; and since the non-linear theory looks just like general relativity, gravity could be massive without us having noticed it yet.

But the roller coaster ride wasn’t yet over. Later that same year, Boulware and Deser uncovered what everyone thought was a fatal flaw in Vainshtein’s solution to the Fiertz-Pauli problem: they proved that any non-linear theory of massive gravity must somewhere possess a ghost, which is theorists’ lingo for an intrinsic and uncontrollable instability that means a theory is, if not mathematically inconsistent, then nonetheless irredeemably unphysical. Bouware and Deser’s proof was so expansive and thorough that they managed to kill the theory of massive gravity for a few more decades.

In the meantime, two apparently unrelated developments have occurred. The first is a deepening of our understanding of perturbative theories, like Fiertz-Pauli gravity. These were once thought to be little parts of a fundamental, ultimate theory; in this mindset, the discovery of any problem or unavoidable anomaly in a theory was enough to kill that theory dead. However, the intervening years have taught us that theories defined perturbatively are actually much more flexible than that. We now call them effective field theories, and understand that they intrinsically possess regimes of validity and regimes in which they are invalid. That is, all our theories--even the celebrated Standard Model--are theories that describe what’s going on for certain energy and length scales, and only those length scales. If there seems to be a problem on length or energy scales where we know them to be invalid, then we don’t need to worry: those are probably totally phony problems, ones that will resolve themselves when the full theory is known.

This kind of evolution in thinking has been a big part of the story of modern physics. For instance, one of the theoretical conundrums that led to quantum mechanics was the question of why orbital electrons didn’t crash into the nuclei of atoms. After all, when we propel an electron in a circle in an experiment, it emits radiation and loses speed and angular momentum. It turns out, of course, that the regime of validity for the classical physics that describes electron radiation doesn’t include the length scales inside of an atom, where we have to use quantum mechanics to understand what’s going on.

The other development came with theoretical speculations about infinite extra dimensions, begun in earnest when Dvali, Gabadadze, and Porrati (DGP) proposed a model of the Universe with our familiar 4 dimensions plus one infinite dimension we couldn’t see. Theorists soon realized that, for 4D observers like us, a theory with an infinite extra dimension could be turned into an effective field theory for gravity, but one in which the graviton had a kind of “soft”, or energy-dependent, mass. This effective theory is related to but slightly different from the Fiertz-Pauli form; however, this kind of “soft” mass doesn’t really constitute “massive gravity”, which is why it doesn’t violate the proofs that the Fiertz-Pauli form was unique.

All of these developments have led to the latest breakthrough, announced quietly in a recent, and very technical, paper by by Claudia de Rham and Gregory Gabadadze (the same Gabadadze as in the infinite extra dimension model), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0443v1. Using insights gained from the study of the DGP model and its successors, de Rham and Gabadadze have again returned to the study of massive gravity. The mathematics are complex but the conclusion is simple: the famous Boulware-Deser ghost does exist, but it lives outside of the regime of validity of the massive gravity theory! A ghost outside of the regime of validity is nothing to worry about, just as the electron in the atom doesn’t spin out of control. So, if de Rham and Gabadadze are right, the study of massive gravity is yet again being turned on its head. Given the decades of cat and mouse hunting for a final theory of massive gravity, we can’t be sure that this newest breakthrough will be followed by the discovery of new problems or will prove to be enduring. In the meantime, we theorists can again permit ourselves to think about what this strangely unkillable theory of massive graviton might mean for physics.

(Graviton plushie image above from www.particlezoo.net.)

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Looks to me like more untestable postmodern pseudoscience.

Show me a definitive prediction that can tell us whether "massive gravity" is a useful approach to gravitation or just more Ptolemaic rubbish.

A definitive prediction is: Prior, Non-adjustable, Quantitative, Feasible and Unique to the theory being tested. Without Definitive Predictions/Empirical Testing science descends into New Age hermetics.

report post as inappropriate

Massive gravity exists in some versions or models of N = 8 supergravity. Massive gravity is complicated stuff. It has been my sense that it does not enter into physics until energy reaches near Planck scale.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

"What he found was remarkable: the nonlinearities of the theory become stronger and stronger as the mass of the graviton shrinks. What this means is that when the graviton mass vanishes, the extra modes are completely frozen by their non-linearities, and the theory becomes compatible with general relativity after all! The idea is that if the graviton mass is small, this would force the extra modes to become non-linear in places, like our solar system, where there was a lot of energy density around; and since the non-linear theory looks just like general relativity, gravity could be massive without us having noticed it yet."

"Theorists soon realized that, for 4D observers like us, a theory with an infinite extra dimension could be turned into an effective field theory for gravity, but one in which the graviton had a kind of “soft”, or energy-dependent, mass."

Is it that space has an inertial effect?

report post as inappropriate

The real problem is this infinity in fact.

There we return about the correct utilization of our referential and topology(which evolves,revolves, rotates)

Making simple,......the infinity can be seen with two main vues.1 our adds, multiplications and series....and their utilization interpreting the uniqueness and its finite number....we adds the number simply and

2 behind our wals , quantics and cosmologics, in fact, behind,above this physicality, we name this, the unknown.

We can't confound the infinity behind the walls and our infinities due to our method of calculations, simply.

The logic is the sister of the rationality in a pure objectivity of our 3D spacetime.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Just a thought experiment:

If gravity and acceleration were not just equivalent but identical, then the mediating particle would be the photon. Because when we push an object to accelerate it electro-magnetic force is used.

This brings up the question: How can gravity be identical to acceleration? See:

http://www.zenophysics.com/DWT/4b__Ordinary_Gravity.html


report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Jason, the limits of thought/description are more clearly and sharply shown the more thought becomes like experience in general. So much for your "God".

Thought is NOT experience in general Jason. Experience in general is not a thought(s) Jason, it is not "created".

report post as inappropriate

Hi Fast Fred and Georgina:

Both of you touch another problem beyond time. It is how we perceive the world. We know, that our brain constructs a world from our sensory input, our experiences and our “knowledge.” All of us live in this virtual world which differers in each or us.

The purpose of science (for me) is to find out what the “real” world is. This seems to be almost impossible to achieve completely.

We are prisoners of our faculties. One of my favorite examples is color. Most of us are not aware of the fact that color is something our brain makes up. There is no “color” in the physical world only mixtures of electro-magnetic wavelengths. Any color can be produced by a million of wavelength mixtures.

Time seems to fall into the same category of things our brain invents to interpret the world.

That does not mean that time or color are useless. Color enables us to make finer distinctions between objects than brightness and contrast alone.

Time enabled us to develop our sophisticated world of science which does a very good job to explain almost everything that we can experience. However, it is the science of our non existing world of the past. It can, so-far, not explain what the present is and not what is real.

report post as inappropriate

WHERE ARE YOU DEAR Mr James Putnam...

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos:

Good point! Unfortunately, God does not tell me anything. So I do not know what makes things real.

I only conclude that all real things reside in the present and that time is not part of it.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Brilliant Physics Minded Bloggers,

Question: what constitutes whether something is a quantum signal/system (and therefore exhibits wave behavior) versus a classical system with point-like particle behavior?

For example, I test and troubleshoot electronics. When I turn on my function genertor and connect the signal to an MPEG player, there is a 27MHz electrical signal flowing down the copper cable.

Is that 27 MHz treated like a quantum system of electrical waves? Or is it treated as a classical system of individual electrons moving around?

When I took solid state physics, we used quantum mechanics to derive a Schrodinger Equation solution for the crystal. This point suggests that the electron flow in a copper wire ought to be considered a quantum mechanics signal/system.

To help answer the question, what if we used a Fourier Series/Fourier Transform as a deciding test. If a signal can be described using a Fourier Series/Transform, then it has wave behavior. If it cannot be described with a Fourier Series/Transform, then it has to be a classical system. The Fourier waves would account for the necessary quantum entanglement.

As some signals get very large along the L axis, one would start to expect that, if it could be described as a quantum wave, than that wave could have standing waves of the form Psi = A cos(2pi x/L). What I'm trying to get at is that, the larger a quantum signal/system is, the larger the wavelengths have to be. For example, if we separated a quantumly entangled pair of electrons by 20 km, the waves between them would have a wavelength of 10km, and a frequency of f = c/lamda = 30K Hz.

In other words, further away (larger) equates to a lower and lower bandwidth available to maintain the quantum nature of the system.

Does this make sense?

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jason

Don't normally stop in these parts, but good to see you here and I may be able to help with your question.

If you think 'Law of Conservation of Energy' it may give a better angle on the 30KHz.

I think for the rest you'd need to move on (or back) a bit from Fourier and develop a strict interpretation of the Huygens Principle and special case Ewald-Oseen extinction theorum.

Forget the horrid Integrodifferential Equations for a moment and think in 3D overview. They tend to prove what we've discussed before, that quanta are condensed locally with perturbation of waves, i.e. at a medium interface, which presupposes a background (ether) medium, and send out new refracted waves. This gives a very simple duality which matches observation ('photons' or photoelectrons condense locally at the detector or boundary).

Now we look again in a slightly different light and we find that it's a cancellation function, right through the medium. The old wave doesn't just dissappear, it is cancelled out leaving just the new, which, thinking more carefully, also implies a medium, and explains why the black lines in an interference pattern still contain energy. It may be considered a ground state of dark energy. (at 2.7degrees perhaps).

Keep thinking about that and we see, if our observers frame doesn't change, that the new wave is travelling at a different speed in the new medium. As this is the same process with a co-moving medium it means that light reaching any new medium (a lense for instance) will always be - effectively- changed to 'c' at the fine structure boundary. (as Feynman said). So no matter how fast we go we'll always measure light locally at 'c'. All within the postulates of SR, just adding a little Extra 'DFM' explanation.

Or, if you prefer the old model, the faster we go the thinner we get. Do let me know how you read the extinction theorum.

Best Wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter,

I'm trying to point out that there are striking similarities between quantum waves, RF waves, and the AC signal waves that travel across a copper cable.

Classical behavior is typified by point like objects with mass, velocity, and the ability to be isolated. They obey the logical nature of Venn diagrams.

Quantum waves have interference patters, as do RF waves and AC signal streams along copper cables. They don't respect Venn diagrams, instead, the obey Bell's theorem; they are non-local and exhibit counterfactual definiteness behavior.

What I am getting at is that quantum behavior is not as far removed from us as we think. It is not as fragile to room temperature conditions as we thought.

I guess a hard question would be this: If I can entangle individual electrons or ions, then separate them, why can't I do the same thing with a copper cable between two electronic devices? Solutions to the Schrodinger Equation suggest that quantum entanglement is instantaneous because a quantum wave actually spans the distance.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

In all fairness, you are asking about Huygens Principle in the presence of relativistic observations. Locally, we see everything that Huygen and Fresnel see.

P: "So no matter how fast we go we'll always measure light locally at 'c'." I think this is true; this is where the rubber meets the road. Admittedly, waves are not exactly localized. But absorbing electrons are certainly more local then photons. When the election catches a photon, it determines that the photon was traveling at the speed of light by measuring its wavelength (momentum p = h/lamda) and its frequency (energy E = hf).

Electron experience of the photon is first hand experience; nothing more reliable then that.

report post as inappropriate

Balanced attraction and repulsion are key to stabilized and fundamental distance in space in conjuction with both unified and balanced inertia/gravity and space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy. This provides quantum gravity. Electromagnetism/light and gravity are key to distance in space. Think!

report post as inappropriate

I read today at http://www.iansample.com/site:

"Why do things have mass? This seemingly simple question baffled generations of scholars, but in 1964 a British physicist named Peter Higgs stumbled on an answer.

His handwritten notes described an invisible field that pervades the cosmos and gives mass to the building blocks of nature. Without it, life could not exist.

A tell-tale particle called the Higgs boson could prove the theory, but to produce it scientists would need to recreate the fiery conditions of the early universe.

Unwittingly, Higgs had sparked the greatest hunt in modern science. As scientists close in on the elusive prize, we stand to gain not only the secret of mass, but a door to hidden realms of the universe. Massive tells the story."

This is not my first encounter with the theory of the Higgs particle. In my opinion, it is scientific desperation. Another invisible 'cause' field to fill in for the unknown nature of cause. Another adhoc fix thrown into the mix. There will be no Higgs boson. It is not needed. What is needed is to get the nature of mass correct right from the start of theory. It is included at the start and all efforts to avoid explaining it just gets theoretical physics deeper into error so that lifting itself up with this theory of the Higgs particle cannot do anything more than sustain its error until empirical evidence comes through to dispel it.

James

report post as inappropriate

James / Jason

I understand being able to 'invent' new fields at will stems from Lagrange, but IMO a consequence of denial of the unified field including the em wave medium. Once we allow the real field the massive boson is superfluous. It's also been said the longer the search goes on the less chance of success. I agree with you entirely James.

Jason. Sorry I lost this thread. Well done with; "This is where the rubber meets the road." Never a more apt comment, as this is the frame transition point. Length contraction occurs if a car tries to transition too rapidly, i.e. unto a concrete wall at rest with the road. This is no joke, this is the same process as your photon string!

You said; "When the election catches a photon, it determines that the photon was traveling at the speed of light by measuring its wavelength (momentum p = h/lamda) and its frequency (energy E = hf). Yes, but no. In fact if the electrons are in motion relative to the 'arrival medium' of the photon it will NOT arrive at 'c'!. (frame transition). But the electron doesn't give a damn about arrival rate, after a tiny dealy (PMD = refraction element 1) it sends them on at 'c' wrt itself. (refraction element 2).

Sorry, you'll need your brain in low gear and at full power to absorb that lot!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Mach and Einstein sought the averaged smeared-out mass equivalency.

Inertial and gravitational equivalency makes space semi-detached from touch.

Half gravity and half inertia both make space semi-detached from touch.

This then represents a fundamental equivalency of what is larger and smaller space, as it represents equivalent and balanced attraction and repulsion in what is essentially the same space.

This then generally incorporates or demonstrates the quantum mechanical nature of space and energy (and it includes quantum gravity).

Unified theory in physics demands that a larger and smaller space both be represented as equivalent as well.

report post as inappropriate

Force is invisible and visible. This is the key to uniting gravity, electromagnetism, inertia, and quantum gravity.

Gravitational and electromagnetic space (electromagnetism) are both invisible and visible.

report post as inappropriate

Proportionately increased/averaged inertia offsets/balances reduced/averaged gravity to establish an equivalent/same space that is also understood to be flattened/contracted and expanded/stretched. This gives us quantum gravity, equivalent attraction and repulsion, and the union of gravity/electromagnetism.

This is what Mach and Einstein wanted and needed.

report post as inappropriate

Mach and Einstein both sought an "averaged smeared out mass". This is exactly what I have shown. And, I only saw this written AFTER I came up with my ideas. There is no substitute for ability. My ideas now give you physicists the unified understanding of physics:

Balanced attrraction and repulsion.

Space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy (or force).

I explained the union of inertial mass and passive gravitational mass.Half gravity is equivalent with half inertia; it is that simple.

Einstein never showed a truly unifom gravitational field, as the Earth's gravitational field is NOT truly/actually uniform. Accordingly, you have to balance attraction and repulsion. I have. Therefore, there are no static solutions to Einstein's equations regarding all of space (the Universe) -- and Einstein knew this was then wrong -- because he could not successfully incorporate inertia in order to balance repulsion and attraction in order to establish a truly uniform gravitational field. I HAVE DONE ALL OF THIS, AND MORE.

report post as inappropriate

We can represent a smaller space as larger, and a larger space as smaller by increasing/AVERAGING inertia in conjunction with reducing/AVERAGING gravity.

This unifies gravity and electromagnetism, and it is ultimately essential in demonstrating quantum gravity as well.

report post as inappropriate

All ideas and understandings (including experience) are not visual only. This has thrown physics way off balance and off the full mark.

Tactile ideas, such as force, hardness, pressure, impact, and gravity matter. Accordingly, F=ma is central to any unified theory. Touch is fundamentally equivalent with gravity. That matters too.

F=ma ultimately demonstrates quantum gravity, as inertia and gravity/acceleration can be shown as equivalent (gravity, inertia, and acceleration all averaged) with/as force/energy. This fundamentally balances attraction and repulsion by generally averaging/controlling for motion/mobility, and it gives us the union of gravity and electromagnetism/light by combining and including opposites in a balanced and extensive/complete fashion.

(Einstein used the feeling of gravity in his theory/understanding.)

report post as inappropriate

Great quote at the The Imagineer's Chronicles:

"Demonstrates one of the most powerful tools for developing a Unification Theory are ideas created by imagination. They enable one to extrapolate the properties of an observable universe to one that is unobservable."

Shows how dream experience is invisible and visible with thought and reality/physics ultimately combined and included as one.

report post as inappropriate

Dear James Putman,

Did my explanation of mass make any sense to you? I would happily explain it again. I am explaining it in terms of measurables, with atomic clocks (time dilation), and photon frequency which is a measurable as well.

I am happy to explain and defend these ideas.

report post as inappropriate

I've been trying to write out the equations for motion of a particle of mass m subjected to the potential energy of a pulsed laser. The idea is to pulse red laser, than orange, yellow, green, blue, then violet. I have to figure out how to write this as a potential energy. I'll have to describe the laser energy using Kronecker deltas. This might take a while to work out.

report post as inappropriate

James, Jason.

I think you're closer than you realise. I look forward to your essays.

James have you looked at the basic motion video yet?http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilati
on.htm

I'd like to offer two related points to hopefully 'join up' your thinking. Jason, the reason you say in one breath 'f can't change', then 'f changes', is the same reason there's confusion about 'local' constancy of 'c'. You keep grasping this momentarily then letting it slip. Now see if you can cling on to it;

What we observe wrt speed and frequency depends entirely on observer frame. See my essay and the strings. This is directly related to the 2nd point; Light has two entirely separate speed change components when it changes medium. This is well known in geometric optics but it's implications ignored (reversal of time averaged Poynting vector and failure of law of refraction).

The first is the PMD (Medium) Delay of n you've both grasped. The second is the relative motion of the media. You should be able to see this as you haven't been fitted with any of the blinkers formal physics training can bring. The really difficult bit is visualising the effects of both those two variable elements (including the 2nd as a 'couplet') in all combinations. The first also has internal variables to allow for, i.e. the observer frame change. It seems most human brains simply haven't developed adequately in the way required to do that. You appear ahead of most, but with more careful mental dexterity needed. It really does need moving pictures, even for the basics!

So essentially, you should find a variable speed of light theory IS a constant speed of light theory when viewed from with the frame the light is travelling within, including changing frame when the light does. Wavelengths are 'stretched' as well as compressed, (or frequency subject to observer frame) always maintaining E = f*lambda. That is the Discrete Field Model. I do hope that helps.

I wish you luck.

Do give me any thoughts, (including any formally trained physicists)

Peter

PS. Jason, yes, I think you ought to put aside the quest for a gravibeam till you've done more research. The levitating frogs are worth checking out.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter,

P: "PS. Jason, yes, I think you ought to put aside the quest for a gravibeam till you've done more research. The levitating frogs are worth checking out. "

Actually, I disagree. I've been looking at the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics as well as the laws of motion. For a particle of mass m, its kinetic energy is T=1/2mv^2. For the force, I am trying to understand things like spectral energy density. I have to figure out a way to write the potential energy expression. I'm starting with Digital Signal Processing. Basically, I have a repeating frequency ramp, f(t) = f*\frac{t}{t_0}



I have to write this in terms of a potential energy expression. In some ways it looks very promising. In other ways, I'm not sure the math can keep up.

I want to start buying some 100mW lasers online. I guess lasers are my new hobby. The first step is to align all the laser optics in a container of some kind. I'll worry about the electronics later.

I don't know if anyone has tried this before. I'm aiming for a gravity beam. I might only get a fancy bug zapper or even a disintegration ray. I figure it's very unlikely that I will inadvertently open a doorway to the fifth dimension and get devoured by monsters.

There really is no reason not to pursue this. The mathematical physics is unfinished, but suggestive; but the idea itself is really interesting.

P.S. As photons transition from inertial frame A to B, time dilation changes the frequency; index of refraction changes the speed of light, c_n = c/n.

report post as inappropriate

Jason.

"As photons transition from inertial frame A to B, time dilation changes the frequency; index of refraction changes the speed of light, c_n = c/n."

That's the point I'm making, you have most of the creatures but you're missing two enormous 'elephants in the room'. Firstly; It's that 'speed of light change' that dilates (or stretches) the waves, i.e. 'time'.

But importantly; Your analysis only works if the frames are going at the same speed! There are TWO, seperate, factors affecting speed when observed from a fixed reference frame. The second one is that the relative 'V' between frames ALSO changes it's speed from your viewpoint.

I think this is simply beyond most brains to hold that and manipulate it with the other factors. You keep getting it momentarily then forgetting it again! Can you see it again now?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Electromagnetism and gravity both need to be represented as invisible and visible space in conjunction with equivalent/balanced attraction and repulsion in order to unify them and to attain gravitational and inertial equivalency. This gives us quantum gravity too.

Gravity is key to distance in/of space. Gravity is visible and invisible as space. Inertia is key to distance in/of space, and electromagnetism/light is also key to distance in/of space. Half strength/force inertia and half strength/force gravity demonstrate equivalent force/energy (strength) in keeping with equivalent distance in/of space as well.

report post as inappropriate

Jason

I know what it is. There's a spot in the centre of our eye where the nerves gather together, so we can't see anything if we look directly at it. It seems the same for all humans. There's a giant elephant in front of you, and you're looking straight through it.

Consider the policeman, in his car, holding his radar gun. If he was parked, Would the em wave radar signal give him the same reading as when he was doing 50mph? ...Think carefully.

The answer is NO, because the frequency has changed, BECAUSE his car, he, and his gun are moving at v. WHICH ONLY WORKS because light is doing the constant C within and WITH RESPECT TO his car and gun.

From your frame, observing beside the road, you will see that to do that it has changed speed from your own C to the C of the cars inertial frame (the speed the postulates of SR say it must do - within each frame.)

We know anyway it has to do that because when it goes through the glass windscreen (and gun lens) it travels at c/1.502 (n for crown glass). That is always wrt the glass, not anywhere else it may or may not have been or fancies visiting! It then it changes speed to c/1.003 wrt the gas inside the car (hopefully air).

The Doppler shift is evidence of the speed change, (just like it was with the car the beam bounced off). When light bounces off a moving mirror it remains at C wrt the air NOT the mirror!

So if you took a video of the car as it went past, from a fixed camera, and could see the photons, you would see them doing less than 'c', by both the V of the car AND the c/n of air. (the light entering the camera also does c/n).

Is that elusive elephant starting to appear in front of you yet?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Matter and energy are quantum mechanical in nature, so a larger and smaller space must be combined (and included) in order to unite inertia and gravity with/as force/energy having equivalent and stabilized distance in/of space. It is critical to demonstrate how a larger space is made smaller, and equivalently, how a smaller space is made larger.

F=ma can represent an increase in force/energy (of one fourth) in relation to distance in/of space if inertia is proportional to gravity/acceleration. The equivalent force/energy relation of inertia and gravity as they relate to (and give) distance in/of space is one half.

When space is both larger and smaller by one fourth, it is increased by one half. F=ma demonstrates the fundamental equivalency of inertia and gravity/acceleration as each relates (equivalently) to/with distance in/of space as one half. Half gravity and half inertia give us the middle distance in/of space.

The known mathematical union of gravity and electromagnetism in a fourth dimension of space indicates a space that is equally expanded and contracted by one half.

Since combining and including opposites is key, space that is both larger and smaller (by one fourth -- as the "difference") is equivalent to "combined" space that is equally expanded and contracted by/at/as one half.

report post as inappropriate

James/Ray

I think James has seen it - the elephant in the room. Ray you only have to read my essay.(and the 5 papers!). 'Local' is within each discrete inertial field.

M87 is no illusion, and nothing is travelling faster than 'c' WHERE it is travelling. i.e. Locally.

And if we see a light pulse flashing up a fluorescent tube on a bus as it goes past us, all we see is the 'SCATTERED' photons emitted by the gas particles as the em energy goes through it at 'c' locally IN THE TUBE. Nothing has to breach 'c' ANYWHERE for us to see the 'rate of change of position' as apparently more than 'c'.

Mind that invisible elephant in front of you!

My 2009 paper predicted 'lensing' delays of over 10 years from high redshift galaxies. Over 3 years was recently found, to astronomers shock and horror.

Jason, you need to find and employ those extra 100 before you put finger to keyboard! You glimpsed it with your photon string, now you've totally lost it again - and to think I cited you in the essay! Hope you grasp it again.

But congratulations James. If we can get 100 to see the elephant we might even save the human race from being buried by it's dung!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

James

Same thing. The battle is in seeing it in the first place, which takes some 'computing' power. As you now know, once you've seen it all the rest falls into place. There are simply too many variables for the mind to easily manipulate at once (as the current discussion in the essay strings).

You should be aware the concept isn't new. Sir George Stokes found it in the mid 18th century, (with Fresnel, Heaviside etc and support from Max Planck) with 'Full Ether Drag'. But Lorentz and others just couldn't see it. A bit like most here, where I've been trying to explain it for 2 years! The history of how Stokes was overridden is covered in one of my papers, the 4th I think; http://wbabin.net/weuro/jackson.pdf

All new 'takes' on it (and there's potential for dozens of fresh ones) are valid, welcome and indeed essential, but must of course cite the history, though it's a 'eureka' moment for all who find it, and each will have their own personal subjective view of it. However, it's always been simply reducible to "light changes speed to maintain local 'c' at frame transition".

It should stand a real change of paradigm shift as it does not have to reject the postulates of SR, just 'explain' them better. I've posted my other papers on it before, but for your interest and records the first 3 were; http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0047

http://vixra.org/abs/0912.0041


http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010

and last years essay; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/495

Best of luck. And if I can be of any more help I'm very happy to collaborate.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Celestial and terestrial gravity are only fundamentally and truly unified at bottom by inertial and gravitational equivalency. This generally controls for motion and averages acceleration in keeping with half gravity and half inertia.

This gives us quantum gravity as well, as space is contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded on balance. Accordingly, a larger space is represented as smaller, and a smaller space is represented as larger.

report post as inappropriate

Quantum gravity requires that a smaller space be made larger and that a larger space be made smaller. This makes space flattened/contracted and stretched/expanded (on balance). The only way to do this is by inertial and gravitational force/strength equivalency (at half/middle/average strength). This estabishes space in/as the middle distance in keeping therewith. This gives us force/energy that is equivalently expressed as/with distance in/of space, and it includes position in/of space relative to distance in/of space.

report post as inappropriate

Inertia and gravity may be unified -- and a smaller space made larger, and a larger space made smaller -- if we are semi-weightless/semi-mobile. This makes space manifest in/as the middle distance in/of space in conjunction with half gravity and half inertia. Gravity attaches space, and inertia detaches space. Accordingly, space is then semi-detached from touch, as it manifests in/as the middle distance in/of space in conjunction with half gravity and half inertia, and space is contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in keeping therewith. A smaller space is then made larger, and a larger space is then made smaller. This gives us quantum gravity and balanced/equivalent attraction and repulsion in keeping with equivalent/balanced inertia and gravity, as this all relates to/involves the middle distance in/of space.

report post as inappropriate

Force is a combination of mass and length. The key is to show mass and length as equivalent. To do this, we need to show inertia as equivalent with gravity first. If inertia and gravity are equivalent, then distance in space/length is consistent with balanced attraction and repulsion. If inertia is at half strength, and gravity is at half strength, then distance is in the half/middle distance as well. F=ma then represents inertia and gravity/acceleration equivalently in conjunction with quantum gravity.

The problem with modern physics is that there is no basic and fundamental frame of reference (centered distance in/of space) that demonstrates force and energy as fundamental and equivalent. Distance in/of space must reflect force/energy strength and inertial/gravitational unification.

report post as inappropriate

If inertia and gravity are equivalent (both at half strength/force), then distance in space/length is consistent with balanced/equivalent attraction and repulsion, and also with the half/middle strength of both inertia and gravity.

Accordingly, space then manifests in/as the middle distance in/of space in conjunction with (and as) quantum gravity.

Therefore, F=ma then fundamentally represents motion/mobility that is generally averaged (or controlled for). Accordingly, inertia is then at the same force/energy strength as gravity, thereby providing generally balanced, fundamental, and stabilized distance in/of space in conjunction with generally balanced attraction and repulsion. F=ma fundamentally and ultimately represents essentially or fundamentally constant force (or energy) in conjunction with generally balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity/acceleration.

When you look down at the ground/feet while standing upright, that is gravitational space; and, importantly, this pertains to distance in/of space as it involves full gravity (both invisible and visible).

Gravity is key to distance in/of space, and there is no getting around this.

Space is semi-visible/semi-invisible in dreams, as it is gravitationally averaged in relation to/with vision. Combining and including opposites is key, as vision begins invisibly and ends visibly in conjunction with the range/experience of gravitational space and feeling (while standing upright and looking directly downward).

Space is invisible and visible in/as dream experience. It is that simple. Therefore, the person having, or remembering, the dream sees it; but nobody else sees it.

Importantly, vision begins transparently/invisibly inside the body and eye in keeping with the [relatively] reduced feeling that is experienced at the top of the body. Vision then ends (with visible space) at the earth/feet in the progression/inctrease involving both gravitational feeling and distance in space.

report post as inappropriate

If inertia and gravity were at identical (half) strength, then space would be attached and detached with equivalent/balanced force/energy. Inertia (as in the experience of outer space) detaches space, and [full] gravity attaches space. (Inertia and gravity are key to distance in/of space.)

Half/MIDDLE gravity and half/MIDDLE inertia would make space semi-detached from touch (in both instances, that is), as it would establish an equivalent space -- as (and in) the MIDDLE distance in/of space -- in conjunction with this equivalent and fundamental force/energy (at half/MIDDLE strength).

To achieve/have a fundamental union between force/energy (inertia, gravity/acceleration, repulsion, attraction) as it is equivalently expressed as length/distance in/of space is the deepest unification that is generally possible in physics.

report post as inappropriate

F=ma (Force = [inertial] mass multiplies times acceleration) can be represented quantum mechanically, as inertia/resistance to acceleration is fundamentally equivalent with gravity/acceleration when gravity and inertia are both at half strength. (Matter and energy are known to be quantum mechanical in origin.)

Gravity attaches space, and inertia detaches space. Accordingly, space is contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in conjunction with quantum gravity and balanced/equivalent attraction and repulsion. This explains the fundamentally quantum mechanical nature of matter and energy in keeping with making a larger space smaller and (equivalently) making a smaller space larger. Space that is semi-detached from touch (in conjunction with BOTH half gravity and half inertia) is understood to be in/at the same (middle) distance in/of space, in keeping with the middle (half) force strength gravity and inertia. This gives us space manifesting as/with variable manifestations of what is essentially the same (and constant) electromagnetic/gravitational energy.

Mass/energy/force (middle gravity and middle inertia) is equivalently expressed as (middle) length/distance in/of space. This is the most fundamental

unification in all of physics, and all of this takes place in/as dream experience.

Inertia and gravity are key to distance in/of space.

report post as inappropriate

Free fall is an inertial frame that is undergoing coordinate acceleration.

When we stand on the ground, we are in a non-inertial reference frame that is subject to 1g of g-force, but no coordinate acceleration.

If I'm at the stop light in my truck, the light turns green, and I floor it, I can get maybe 1.5g of g-force AND coordinate acceleration.

Does anyone wish to correct my usage of these words?

report post as inappropriate

Jason

Brilliant! (Tom - don't read the below if you don't want your beliefs shaken).

Jason. Your prize is this - which should avoid you wasting hard earned dollars.

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/37860

They say your view depend on what paper you read. More ought to read CERN courier. I don't actually agree with your terms, but once you know what to look for it'll be easily easily found. As a bonus, dragged up deep from the archives, one I'll also pass to Eckard;

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28606

I think these should help considerably in stopping you wandering around too far off track (searching for that elephant).

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Quoting Popper quoting E.M. Forster, I don't believe in belief. If you think anything going on at CERN contradicts relativity, however, you don't understand the research. In fact, showing that the equivalence principle is tractable to quantum scale measure is sine qua non to a coherent theory of quantum gravity, and actually assumes the truth of general relativity. And superluminal communication is already enshrined in quantum mechanics as nonlocality; testing the extent to which this principle intersects with principles of relativity is also a path to unification of the theories.

Point is, as I've been telling you guys all along, contemporary experimental research programs are tied to known physics, not to new theories. Understand the old theories, and their results, if you want to make new ones. That's how the theorists at CERN do it. That's how Einstein did it. And that's how science is done. One does not simply draw conclusions from data, no matter how it seems to fit into one's belief system. Examine your own, not mine.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Tom,

"One does not simply draw conclusions from data, no matter how it seems to fit into one's belief system."

Someone has to, because that's where theories come from. The problems start when we draw conclusions from theories. That's when belief systems take over.

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

OK, they need no less then six pulse lasers across a range of frequencies. I like: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet. They pulse these frequencies in order, rapidly and repeatedly. The idea is to synthesize "shift photons" (or whatever you prefer to call them). Shift photons carry momentum by virtue of the rapid pulsing. If you change the order of frequencies pulsed to: violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, red, then you change the sign of the momentum carried by each shift photon. I'm trying to work out the math this weekend.

When the breakthrough is made, tractor beams and shift photon propulsion will become possible. This is all assuming the correctness of GR and QM; which is a correct assumption. If there are any slight deviations of the correctness of GR and QM, they are irrelevant to the development of the tractor beam.

Yes, I know this sounds like some kind of Star Trek fantasy, but I'm just an electronics technician. I'm trying to articulate the mathematical foundation of shift photons using Hamiltonian Mechanics. It's like creating a series of frequency wedges that mirror an equivalent gravitational potential wedge; these wedges move and bombard their target at the speed of light.

We're so close to a historic technological breakthrough in propulsion technology. Will we do it in the next ten years? Or the next ten thousand years?

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

I read the second link. What is being argued here is that gravity can cause photons to travel superluminally. Huh. Wow. Causal events are allowed to look like they are non-causal. For example, traveling superluminally, you could see the meteor impact, and then (out of causal order) see the meteor plummeting towards earth. But one is never afforded the opportunity to change the past. That is what I'm saying.

As for photons being caused to travel superluminally by gravity, I'll go along with that. I don't know if you read my response to your critique of my paper. Thank you, by the way. I postulated that the global speed of light, as distinct from local, might be set by the presence of a significant source of gravity. The M87 hurled a huge amount of mass-energy into space. That mass energy has its own gravitational field. The gravity field sets the speed of light relative to the gravity field. In other words, debris from M87 is allowed to travel faster than the speed of light because the debris is a source of gravity and sets the speed of light relative to the gravitational source's center of mass.

I'm not sure how this squares with conservation of energy or time dilation. It won't let you change the past. Normally, gravity causes time to slow down as one goes deeper into the gravity well. That might be how nature prevents causality violations.

report post as inappropriate

Jason

You have it right here, except why the 'Gobal'?; I postulated that the global speed of light, as distinct from local, might be set by the presence of a significant source of gravity. The M87 hurled a huge amount of mass-energy into space. That mass energy has its own gravitational field. The gravity field sets the speed of light relative to the gravity field. In other words, debris from M87 is allowed to travel faster than the speed of light because the debris is a source of gravity and sets the speed of light relative to the gravitational source's center of mass.

Because what you describe is 'local' to the mass, as is a gravitational field.

In fact it's not the 'gravity' itself that's causing it, remember there's also em field, ionosphere, plasmasphere, all in the same inertial frame, so light does 'c' with respect to each. And never forget that Observer Frame is crucial! Light can't do any speed at all except relative to something else - nothing can. Observers can be moving on infinitely many vectors (i.e. in infinitely many other inertial frames)

Now you have to study atomic scattering to find the rest of the picture. But don't forget the principle as it applies to ALL mass, and I really do mean ALL! why should the laws of physics vary and some bits be special and some not. You did have it once before and it slipped away again. You have a big advantage over most as you're less wedded to the 100 year old physics than them, which makes it impossible to see.

I'll read your response when I get a mo. I'm desperately trying to finish a peper. And now i'm going to sound crazier than you!.. don't worry about being too Star Treck, as it turns out every bit of us all has already done the 'beam me up' bit at least once - I'll explain once it's submitted. You'll love it.

Yes, change is on the way. You're looking for the physics of ten years time, not just 100 years back. In ten years time your physics is what we'll be needing, not to be just looking back yet another ten years.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/805509#ans10278578

report post as inappropriate

Einstein's conception of gravity cannot fundamentally account for gravitational and inertial equivalency/balancing, and it cannot demonstrate balanced attraction and repulsion in conjunction with unifying gravity and electromagnetic phenomena/energy generally. Indeed, the origin of matter and energy is quantum mechanical, so Einstein's theory of gravity ultimately fails on all of these counts taken together.

Read more: Is it only a consequence that gravity is a special force not based on the fact that space-time is not flat that differentiates Einsteins special theory of relativity from general relativity? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/805509#ixzz1D7F5LUow

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hey Bubba,

I bought this book called Exploring Black Holes, an Introduction to General Relativity. It was recommended by the bloggers at PhysForum.com. Equation [1] is, tau^2= t^2 + s^2, where tau is the "wristwatch" time (a.k.a.) proper time. Then in equation [2], they say that t(in meters) = ct_second. Maybe it's just me, but equation [1] just blows the units away which makes it a useless equation. I know physicists like to set the units to unity, but that just removes any flag that says: "Hey partner! You're units are wacky!"

My point is that too much conceptual mathematics gets away from reality in the following way. How do you know whether or not you're adding apples and apples? You could be adding apples and applesauce or apples and oranges.

report post as inappropriate

Bubba,

Okay, let's try this one;

"At time t=a, your position can be described by a set of local cordinates (a,x,y,z). In the absence of any outside forces, it then follows that at a future time t=b, your coordinates will be (b,x,y,z). Since the meric is Cartesian, the only chznge will be a time interval. x,y,z remain unchanged. In other words, a change in the coordinate t does not correspond to a change in coordinatesd x,y,z."

x,y, and z do not change. Is it rational to consider they exist as the present? So the change is with t, not xyz, as b has replaced a. Thus as b arrives from the future, a recedes into the past? It would seem that in this model, the change is the future becoming the past, not the present, xyz, moving from past to future? The future is potential and the past is evidential, so it would seem future is cause and past is effect, since there is no way to know all potential prior to any occurrence and the intersection of that potential creates the event., which is then replaced and recedes into the past.

So it's not that xyz move along the time coordinate, but that the collapse of potential progresses within the confines of xyz, ie. the present. If time is not a coordinate, what does that say about spacetime?

report post as inappropriate

Conservation of energy has become an obstruction to the shift photon concept. Does anyone object to attacking conservation of energy? After all, if energy cannot be created, then where did all this energy come from? Did God create it, or what?

report post as inappropriate

You cannot avoid the question: where did the energy of the Big Bang come from? Either:

A: Energy of the Big Bang plus the gravitational (negative) energy add to zero; which preserves conservation of energy...

or,

B: God said: Let there be Light; which is equivalent to the Big Bang; ipso facto, the Holy Bible is correct, and God (the Christian God) created the universe.

or,

C: there exists some other explanation to explain where the energy of the Big Bang came from. Please explain it.

Ignoring this post is equivalent to admitting either A or B.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jason.

Sorry, I object. Energy won't entirely go away.

The answer to your last post is 'C'. In a way it seems Cosmic Ray is right and it's about scales. If you look at how stars are recycled, either by supernova or plasma jets via their tokamak (toroid) black holes (see Chandra IR Crab Nebula core photo), you can see a small version. Galactic quasars (super massive black holes up to 10^9 solar masses) are the mummy bear size. If we look closely the Universe looks very similar to the big grizzly daddy bear version. So this means we were almost certainly recycled from the universe that went before, just like galaxies are (paper going in tonight) by quasars. Google Centaurus A and find the action shot with the helical jet. i.e. just like smaller black holes, the big bang was powered by the waste matter from the universe that went before. (you heard it here first!)

The fact the Milky Way has done it once already recently is how you've already done that Star Trek ionises and beam across space trick. But don't panic, we're not due again till after the sun burns out. ..Does that help?

And re your question of a particle changing the sped of light; Just consider the flux of up to 10^13 particles/mm^-3 over 10 kiloparsecs thick, all oscillating it the new frequency it need to be to maintain 'c' in the new frame. Considering Cosmic Ray is transmitted by Stokes and anti Stokes up and down shifted scattering does that seem more sensible?

The key is to remember Einstein specified xyz as attached to a "BODY", not, as John says, (and increasingly many others) an unattached mathematical abstraction we keep forgetting to re-attach to reality.

And you never know, perhaps I only remember all that as one of my particles wasn't entirely wiped from the last galaxy! -Oh yes, it also resolves the re-ionisation/ re polarisation epoch issue, Chiral polarisation, uncertainty (twin jet precession) etc etc. But lets do things one at a time and get your hyper stream started first, we may need to do a quick runner in 5bn years!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter,

You'll forgive me if I disagree with the recycled energy idea. Energy exists and appears to have been created. In doesn't matter how many recycling events took place. The energy is here now, so it must have been created. Either choice A or B has any validity. Choice C merely throws "recycling" into the mix as a diversion.

Am I wrong?

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jason

I think the answers are Yes, ..and Yes. Yes I do forgive you as you haven't yet had sight of the evidence, and Yes you are wrong.

Recycling is no diversion. If stars only last max 9Bn years where are all the dead galaxies clogging up space stopping us seeing to the ends of the universe? The Sloane DSS has just issued final figures. It recorded 1.6m targets. 8.75 of the galaxies found are quasars. And UCAL Have just found a galaxy with a jet they estimate will eat it all in just 20 odd million years! That all means I've just had to revise the estimated average galaxy recycling time down to about 8.5Bn years, so we may get sucked back in before the sun actually dies! So where do you think quasars get all that energy from? Only a whole galaxy could do it. (My paper's now submitted - I'll post a link when it's up).

Have you Googled Centaurus A yet? or the NASA Chandra Crab nebula core black hole shot? Look again at my photo of HH34 in my esay, can you see the giant black hole toroid picked out by the lensing?

I prefer to work a different way to most; research and info in first, then opinions out. I've noticed most seem to prefer it the other way round and just have a guess! I hadn't put you down for one of those.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason

Nice darts! Perfect Bullseye, Do you really believe that nonsense about one galaxy devouring another!??

Yes, the black hole is devouring the galaxy, turning the Lenticular into a ring galaxy as it eats it from the inside and recycles it in the contra flow jets as re-ionised and repolarised plasma on the new axis.(resolving a swathe of anomalies). And -remember this one, the DFM also predicts a really bizarre 4 YEAR lens delay will be found soon!

There are over 120,000 out there we've found so far doing the same thing! To be fair I think that comment you found was from a few years ago. The spectroscopy now supports the twin jet model. Just google quasars and you'll see them all in action. Don't always expect to see the other jet, if it's heading away from us it's too red shifted (which is why theyr'e termed 'radio sources'). I'll post a few random papers with the full SP, though not all up to speed.;

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.1484v1.
pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408..713W

http://dx.d
oi.org/10.1088/1464-4258/10/7/075001

http://iopscience.iop.or
g/1367-2630/11/1/013029

http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/227/1/012001/pdf

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason

I was talking about the perfect 90 degree bullseye hit on the galaxy with the strangely ungalaxy shaped 'dart'. Anyway, we now know it's jets, going outward, i.e. a typical quasar. It's turning a Lenticular into a Ring galaxy by sucking it all in to the centre and blasting it out as an ion plasma.Gogle the cartwheel galaxy and take a close look at the 'spokes'. They don't radiate from the centre, they're matter drawn in from the ring by the spinning toroid (donut).

There are plenty of free papers on lensing around, but read the facts NOT the astronomers interpreguesses. Plasma with an em field is an excellent refractor, or properly, diffractor, of em wave (functions) and or photons, as well as cosmic rays. How do we thing the LHC bends the beam? by imposing a dense em field, which means condensing dense virtual electrons in the magnets inertial frame, which interact with the dense ditto in the beams frame, which propagates the beam polarised with the (field lines) particles.

Halo's do the same, simple diffraction of light, which also dealys it - but, now switch your brain on, by TWO operators of V, one for the c/n of plasma, and one for the v of the galaxy with respect to the 'space' around it (the CMBR rest frame/ cosmic vacuum/Higgs field - call it what you wish).

There is no other way of producing the delay pattern found, unless you invent giant 'gravity wells' as a patch to hide the light down/under for a few years. Whoever invented that idea just didn't know much about physics!

A non zero co-efficient n form plasma is well established, and PMD (polarisation mode dispersal - see optics) is what slows it and diffracts it. It's hardly rocket science as Maxwell and Stokes knew all about it.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

It is irrational to declare 'what if's' and 'could-be's' as something to be accepted as factual.

Just because an observation is consistent with a hypothesis does not mean the hypothesis should be accepted as a framework for a valid theory. There are numerous hypothesis that can account for any particular observation or phenomenon.

The Egyptians planted their crops when Sirius appeared on the horizon at dawn because the Nile would flood a short while after. The Egyptians came up with the theory that the star Sirius caused the flooding of the Nile. A short while after, someone else came up with the theory that the Nile flooded because the God Osris was pissed off at the appearance of the Star sirius and got angry and had a hissy.

Obviously, both theories were completely effective and accurate in predicting the flooding of the Nile. One did not need to understand the theory of Tides or planetary motion to make use of the observations and predict. One theory is only more valuable than another if it can offer more explanatory power and make novel predictions.

Unless a new proposed theory predicts things a current theory can not and the theory can be by falsified by observation, it is worthless. All of the conjectures oferred here cannot be falisifed and do not predict or explain anything that can be tested. They also offer no greater explanatory power over theories which already exists.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. GR is not broke and can account for current observations. It can also make predictions which can be tested. Why go with another theory? Ocaams Razor.

report post as inappropriate

Very perceptive James.

Is Mr Anonymous reticent about admitting who is coming up with those rather old non-applicable and unsubstatiated chestnuts?

The fact is, if you're referring to my comments, all the hypothesise are eminently falsifiable and powerfully predictive. But the most interesting thing is (if you really are interested in looking) that they represent only the most minor adjustments to the old theories to make them all slot together.

i.e. the SR postulates are fine, as is Equivalence, and The Principle of Relativity, all with a touch better explanation and a quantum mechanism to drive them. GR is fine, just better explained, and with a ditto. Even the LT, Contraction and Dilation have their place, they're just not as general as we thought (think). QM had a couple of minor sillies to drop and a few to better explain, but also comes out quite intact.

If you throw any paradox or anomaly at the model it now comes out spick, span and clean shaven.

Georgina has just produced a brilliant essay highlighting how we've all been a bit dim. If you really want to hang on to your beliefs whatever, that's fine, but please don't think you'll get away with unsubstantiated criticism any more! You can get the rest of the solution from Edwins and mine - if you can handle the initially difficult extra step of dynamic conceptualisation. Do have a go.

Once you learn integro-differential equations they're a doddle! (I'm told!) But you won't need them initially.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Anon,

You say "perhaps there is no solution to the problem" and may be right.

But that does not make it right that when a theory emerges with full falsifiability and great predictive power it can be dismissed by assuming it does not have those attributes. Perhaps there may be a real solution, and perhaps it's only the rose tinted and blinkered spectacles, or limitations to the wit of man, that keep it hidden.

The only way you can validly criticise is to study it and find an inconsistency. many have done so, none have yet succeeded. My essay is so packed with the evidence Eckard has commented I need to clean it up to the central message comes across clearer and can be more easily comprehended.

It seems he's right, even if it will only invite more comments like your own. I know I can't expect everyone to say; "ah! yes of course, dammit how on earth could we have missed something so simple" .. without having a chance to understand it first.

It clears up all the mess you refer to, I promise, that was only there due to those specs, and so far with anomalies it's been like a magic bullet.

It's simply a 3rd way, between an absolute 3rd frame and no (CMBR) frame at all

Remmember - foundations are essential, but if you design and build the foundations before you've designed the superstructure the foundations become a 'box' that you can't think outside. It must all be designed consistently, then it can be built properly without false limits. as one,

I beg you please study the model and challenge any assumption or element you wish. Criticism is otherwise less than worthless.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

While the rest of the physics community is making an all out effort to create a physics theory that is incomprehensible to everyone, and reinforces the idea that everything is impossible, I'm going to take my Photon Theory and try to develop a testable hyperspace theory. I'm starting with the idea that I can create anything, as long as I create its anti-everything partner. For example, conservation of energy is upheld if no not energy has ever been created. I can always say that,

.

In the case of the Big Bang,



But the negative energy of the Big Bang manifests as gravity. In figure 1 of my paper, Photon Theory, I described a symmetry between time dilation and photon frequency. I want to try the same trick to create a hyperspace.

In our universe, the photons are the positive energy and become the particles. In contrast, the negative energy becomes the curvature of space-time. I want to try reversing the symmetry by making the positive energy the space-time, and make the negative energy the photon and the particle. I will adjust my constants in such a way that I get a suitable hyper-space that is available to our universe. It's a very simple approach that's worth a try.

By you physicists go ahead with your mind-bending mathematics. Feel free to reinforce the idea that UFO technology is a joke. I've got half the IQ of the rest of you; but I'm going in the right direction. Which of us will get to our goal first?

report post as inappropriate

Making space increasingly invisible/transparent in astronomical/telescopic observations is the only way that they are even possible. That is, the observations are extended (and magnified) in keeping with the red shift.

Are they [made] closer or farther way? Think of this in relation to their size.

Gravity is key to distance in/of space. Look down at the increasingly invisible space at your feet, and think!

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

John,

If you're there, can you give me the link to the far away blue shifted galaxies that you posted a while back? Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

Jason,

Wow! You mean the entire universe and even what came before is populated by idiots?

There are two reason the Big Bang scenario can't fit within a previous space: one, the stable geometry would mean we would have to be at the exact center of the universe, much as I keep pointing out about lightspeed giving the lie to the idea that the metric of space expands with redshifted galaxies receding. Also, think of the shock wave created by the inflation stage passing through space necessarily energized by its own fluctuating energy.

report post as inappropriate

Jason

Glad you agree about the previous universe. The physical evidence is quite consistent with it, just a scaled up version of Quasar recycling.

John

Yes, and the search for intelligent life continues! The big Blazar jet recycling process fits in nicely with what we see, the 'axis of evil', apparently quadrupolar but 'helical' asymmetry, expansion, etc. But it would mean expansion is slowing and the medium provides most of the observed red shift.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

The key in fundamentally unifying gravity and electromagnetism is to balance attraction and repulsion in keeping with half strength, balanced, and equivalent gravity AND inertia.

Indeed, quantum gravity requires the fundamental averaging of both inertia and gravity.

None of you can dispute this, and you cannot legitimately evade it either.

When you have the basic facts/truth, then you are stuck with the basic facts/truth.