[General] Relativity
Dr Grahame Blackwell
grahame at starweave.com
Tue Nov 7 03:40:00 PST 2017
Hi Richard, André, Wolf, and All,
André, I'm delighted that others, too, are now coming to this conclusion. I don't feel that your conclusion is really in any way different from mine - my perception of the situation is pretty much identical to yours. The difference lies, not in how we perceive the situation, but in what we are describing. I have described the actuality of the totality of wavefronts at any given instant, you have (as I understand it) described the experience of that totality as it is mediated/filtered by our physical senses and interpreted by the brain; this matches exactly how I see our assimilation of data from our immersive environment (though I would say the whole brain rather than just neocortex - since limbic system, reptilian brain, etc all contribute to our picture of the reality that we inhabit [including our own body]).
In other writings I have proposed that experience of its environment by, for example, a bat would be radically different from our own, since its internal 'preprocessor logic' would be dealing with quite a different set of inputs: presumably a bat has a major part of its brain given over to processing sound signals to produce a picture of its surroundings, comparable to that produced by our visual cortex; it would be ludicrous to suppose that a bat would have to figure out what incoming sound signals meant in terms of the topography of the fast-moving 'terrain' around it. Similarly for IR sensors in a snake, and all sorts of other sensors in fish etc.
Richard, I fully agree that our sense of 'now' must surely be a 'moving sample' of short duration - I believe this has been shown to be the case by research, also point sources would not allow for extrapolation of meaningful observations (e.g. a colour must necessarily require at least a fragment of wave in order to identify frequency - this is part of the role of sensors, which must therefore have a 'time-sampling' element about them . . . which we know to be the case since photon absorption itself takes a finite time).
I also agree, without question, that the Pythagorean relationship between time-experience, velocity and c is a more appropriate representation if the interrelationship between these qualities than the hyperbolic relationship - this has been a central tenet of all that I've published on this subject over the past 20 years. It was for some time a puzzle to me why people would choose to favour the complexity of the hyperbolic model over the clear (and clean) reality of the Pythagorean description - I liken it to choosing to opt for the Greeks' epicycloids for orbits in a geocentric system rather than the elliptical orbits of a heliocentric system. I concluded (and calculated) after a while that it's all down to appearances (for us as for the Greeks): the Pythagorean relationship, coupled with other real-world phenomena such as electromagnetic foreshortening of objects in motion, leads a moving observer to experience the illusion of a fully reciprocal relationship - considering themself to be at rest, the observer will experience the illusion that others in different states of motion (including the objective rest-state) are in fact subject to 'relativistic' effects. As I keep saying, SR is an observer effect.
This in turn leads to the illusion of full reciprocity - the equivalence (and so also symmetry) of all intertial 'frames'. The hyperbolic model is fully symmetric, whereas the Pythagorean is not. If one chooses to go with the illusion rather than (I contend) objective reality then, just as the Greeks allowed their illusion to dictate a more complex model of the universe, so do we (collectively - with some exceptions).
Clearly the hyperbolic model is faithful to observation and measurement - this is a point that I have always stressed - since all observers and measuring instruments are subject to this 'illusion' (measurements by instruments will be affected by the helical nature of the energy-flows forming their constituent particles); in this respect of course that model is hugely useful - one might say absolutely essential. However, to then on that basis attribute to objective reality the metaphysical property of 'frame symmetry' - leading, for example, to the same train actually BEING (not just seeming to be) different lengths depending on whether one is on the train, watching it from the track-side or observing it from a high-speed aircraft - makes as much sense to me as the notion that planets ARE in fact bouncing around a complex path akin to the path of a fly on the rim of a bicycle wheel being rolled around the outside of a large drum! I reiterate, in BOTH cases I believe that finding causation for such claimed properties could be hugely difficult!
One might ask: if the observed data fits the hyperbolic model so well, why am I (and others) so sure that the Pythagorean model fits the true reality? My answer is one word: Occam. The Pythagorean model requires NO additional explanation for ALL observed effects other than known physical properties, including the now well-attested principle that particles of matter are (or at least can be) formed from photons of electromagnetic energy; by contrast, just an explanation of how a railway train obligingly adjusts its length to simultaneously suit a passenger, a track-worker and a jet pilot so that frame symmetry is not breached could involve quite a few as-yet-unknown (and unimaginable!) properties of material reality. (That 'causation' thing again.)
I need to reiterate: THIS MATTERS! It matters absolutely hugely! (Mainstream) Physics is at present (I would contend) stuck in a cul-de-sac of its own making, unable to move forward on such crucial matters as fundamentals of gravitation as it insists on finding a frame-independent formulation. Releasing that self-imposed constraint would free things up absolutely phenomenally!
I'm actually finding this discussion very exciting! We're now talking about the role of the observer, and of the consciousness of that observer, in the process. This, to me, is a major step forward.
Thanks guys!
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Gauthier
To: srp2 at srpinc.org ; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Relativity
Hi Grahame, André, Wolf, Chip and others,
I also have a sense that our experienced sense of “now” (which is probably not a mathematical point in time but a very short experienced interval which could be different for different people) is related to the speed of light. The best objective measure of experienced time that I know of is one's “wristwatch time” or proper time tau, which moves with a person or object and indicates passing moments of “now” for that person or object (c tau is zero for a photon). Several people, the first I think being Lewis Carroll Epstein in his 1981 book “Relativity Visualized”, discovered that proper time tau (or rather c tau) can be the 4th orthogonal dimension on a Minkowski-type diagram, rather than coordinate time t (or ct) in the usual Minkowski spacetime diagram. This approach simplifies Minkowski diagram math (from hyperbolic to pythagorean), removes the need for light cones, and also suggests the idea that every person (or object with mass) is traveling through time at light-speed, whether standing still or moving. Please see "Relativity Simplified by Modified Minkowski Metric Spacetime and Momentum-Energy Diagrams” at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu .
Richard
On Nov 6, 2017, at 6:48 AM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
Hi Grahame,
You write " At any given instant in time a snapshot of the physical state of the universe is given by the totality of the leading edges (or wavefronts) of the electromagnetic energy flows that make up all the particles and free energies in the universe at that time"
I must say that I also drew converging conclusions with regard to time, and so did a group of European researchers.
You might be interested in an article published last year by Amrit Sorli et al. analyzing what Einstein called the "NOW" moment, title "Cosmology of Einstein's NOW":
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.11.pdf
My personal conclusion is only slightly different from yours, as I would formulate this idea as:
" At any given instant in time each of us records in his neocortex what his senses let him perceive of the physical state of the universe given by the totality of the leading edges (or wavefronts) of the electromagnetic energy flows that make up all the particles and free energies in the universe at that instant of time"
Each of us thus internally builds a personal, thus subjective, model of what is occurring in physical reality as the "present moment" progresses, which "present moment" is the only moment that we can be aware of.
My own conclusions in this regard can be found in Section "8. The Time Dimension" of this article, titled "On the Birth of the Universe and the Time Dimension in the 3-Spaces Model":
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.17.pdf
Best Regards
André
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 10:08:29 -0000, "Dr Grahame Blackwell" wrote:
Wolf [et al.],
I have no doubt that time is a subjective experience of consciousness - that, as you say, the speed of light is in fact the speed at which consciousness moves through 'instants' of reality, i.e. as you put it: "Einstein's constant becomes [IS, in fact]the speed of each observer's "Now"."
I first presented this view myself 10 years ago in an article in published the journal of the Scientific & Medical Network [Network Review, Issue 95, Dec 2007], in the following words:
"
The Role of Consciousness in Time Perception
At any given instant in time a snapshot of the physical state of the universe is given by the totality of the leading edges (or wavefronts) of the electromagnetic energy flows that make up all the particles and free energies in the universe at that time. (In passing it's worth noting that this may have a bearing on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, since the 'position' of a fundamental sub-atomic particle will at that instant be reduced to a single point in the cyclic path of the energy flow forming that particle – which will vary in position and direction at different points in that cycle.)
As time progresses successive snapshots will be given by corresponding advances in each of those energy flows. From the point of view of an eternal observer, unhampered by the temporal limitation of observing only one instant at a time, each of those energy flows will form a continuous thread weaving its way through space as it also progresses through what we call 'time'.
Almost certainly our perception of three-dimensional space is a consciousness-mapping of some deeper reality, but since we're built to think in these terms it makes sense to visualise that succession of snapshots by some spatial analogy. A common model is to think of a succession of frames from a cine film or video recording, but this tends to lose the continuity of those energy flows. Perhaps a better model is that of a four-dimensional spherical crystal, growing outwards from the centre as time progresses (though of course from the eternal perspective that crystal simply is).
Each instant in time is then an infinitely thin three-dimensional layer of that hypersphere, like the layers of an onion. The strands of light-energy snake outwards from the Source at the centre, weaving their intricate patterns of successive instants of reality in synchronisation with one another as they shape our ongoing cosmic destiny. Consciousness, flowing outward from the Source at the speed of light, experiences successive layers of this amazing hypersphere of light as instants of being, each perfect in its own way.
"
[If others think this crazy (as they may), I invite them to consider observations by Planck and Schrödinger on consciousness, which they both considered to bethe fundamental driving force of the universe.]
I'd agree also that "the speed of light is constant for every observer because it is tied to the material which generates the space of that observer" [and, of course, that observer themself]. This is totally consistent with the logical observation that the 'time-experience' of that observer will itself be affected by those energy flows and the rate at which they pass through/around the observer (and any instruments they may use) - and so the time-experience of any observer/instrument will be tied to its state of motion ("reference frame") exactly in accordance with the findings of SR.
I.e. SR is an observer effect caused by the variation in cyclic-to-linear ratio of energy flows in an observer's 'reference frame' affecting the rate at which consciousness experiences the passage of time.
Grahame
=========
----- Original Message -----
From: Wolfgang Baer
To: general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Relativity
At the risk of both repeating and sounding crazy
I've been developing a theory of physics that includes subjective experiences and identifies a background space with every observer
It would then seem that the speed of light is constant for every observer because it is tied to the material which generates the space of that observer. If we look at the relationship between observer and the reference frame and realize the reference frame defines the space for that observer Einstein's constant becomes the speed of each observers "Now"
I have a paper for the Vigier conference tat explores this possibility which I will send if interest exists
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.comOn 11/3/2017 12:37 PM, André Michaud wrote:
Hi Chip,
I indeed see what you mean.
Since the constant velocity of light is established in such certain terms as an absolute velocity, what actually came to my mind was the idea of possibly establishing the asymptotic speed of light itself as the absolute reference with respect to which all motion could be measured.
I'll have a look at Albrecht's work.
André
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:25:40 -0500, "Chip Akins" wrote:
Hi Andre (and Albrecht) and All
I think that if Einstein’s statement “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source” is true, then the only reference which makes any sense is the frame of space itself. It is implicit within the statement that the reference frame for this velocity is space itself. Lorentz argued that there must be a fixed frame of space for these same reasons.
What we observe is exactly compatible with this concept, that there is a fixed frame of space, and that we are not able to measure our motion relative to that fixed frame because matter is made of confined propagating energy which moves at the same velocity as light. Then, in a Euclidian three dimensional space, we would experience the exact transformations Lorentz suggested are required. As a result we would always measure the speed of light to be the same speed. In this causal form of relativity there is no room for the supposition that all motion is relative. For motion is, in such a situation, relative to the frame of space.
The impulse which is momentum (a specific force for a finite time) is quite compatible, it seems, with your concept of the importance of kinetic energy in the behavior of propagating disturbances which make up all particles.
One reason I am interested in the kinetic energy analysis is because it would be nice to better understand the subject of momentum as it refers to the propagation of energy through space. I think it would be helpful if we understood the mechanisms which create this momentum.
Albrecht has done some work in this area, using a novel approach which evaluates the behavior of “extended bodies” in space, which is also very interesting.
Chip
From: André Michaud [mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 11:23 AM
To: chipakins at gmail.com; general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: srp2 at srpinc.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: [General] Relativity
Hi Chip,
I have been thinking about what you wrote here:
"Einstein stated that “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”, which is an incomplete statement, logically inconsistent, because the velocity c in empty space has no meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space, or some other reference, as the logical reference for that velocity. A velocity simply must be stated in reference to something."
My own view on this hinges on the kinetic energy viewpoint that you seem to have taken an interest in.
On page 14 of my paper on the de Broglie photon hypothesis, you will find my take on this issue, which relates the "some other logical reference" that you mention, to the physical presence of momentum related translational kinetic energy:
"Now this brings up the old issue of what this "equilibrium" constant velocity of photons in vacuum (free moving kinetic energy) is relative to in reality. Is it relative to the medium? To the point of emission? To the point of absorption? To the observer? To this or that reference frame, or multiple reference frames, inertial, non inertial, Galilean, moving or not, etc.?
A deeply ingrained habit has developed since the beginning of the 20th century to hypothesize various reference frames in attempts to make sense of the experimentally observed data. But in physical reality, velocity depends on only one criterion: the actual presence of translational kinetic energy. If translational kinetic energy is present and if the local electromagnetic equilibrium allows it, there will be velocity in vacuum, relative to there being absence of translational kinetic energy, irrespective of any hypothesized reference frame or frames.
The absolute lower velocity limit, as seen from this perspective, would be an electron possessing zero translational kinetic energy in excess the energy making up its rest mass. Of course, such an electron totally deprived of translational kinetic energy can only be theoretical, because all massive particles are subject to gravitational or electrostatic acceleration in physical reality from the moment they start existing.
The absolute upper velocity limit involving electromagnetic oscillation is reached when an amount of translational (aka unidirectional) kinetic energy propels an equal amount of kinetic energy captive in transverse electromagnetic oscillation, that is, a free moving photon for example, as described in this paper.
The only other possible case between these two limits involving electromagnetic oscillation, applies to an amount of kinetic energy captive in transverse electromagnetic oscillation being propelled by a lesser amount of translational kinetic energy, such as the kinetic energy making up the rest mass of an electron, plus the transversely oscillating half of its carrier-photon's kinetic energy, both quantities being propelled by the unidirectional half of the carrier-photon's quantum of kinetic energy. The velocity of such a system will mandatorily lie between zero and asymptotically close to the speed of light."
This is the one logical possible other reference that I have identified.
Best Regards
--- André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:23:45 -0700, Richard Gauthier wrote:
Forwarded from Chip
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com>
Subject: [General] Relativity
Date: October 31, 2017 at 6:46:19 AM PDT
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Reply-To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Hi Grahame (and Andre)
A while back, we briefly discussed the idea that SR is not “logically self-consistent” even though many conclude that it is mathematically self-consistent.
Regarding logical self-consistent issues…
In order to address this point I think we would need to take a look at the “landscape” as it relates to “relativity”.
While doing this, if we look at causes, which is to say that we use the concept of cause-and-effect as our guiding principle, as you have properly stressed, we can come to logical conclusions which simply do not agree with SR in all details.
So we can take a look at many of the known conditions to guide the development of a composite view of the causes for “relativity”.
Sound waves travel through a medium. Sound waves exhibit the Doppler Effect simply because they travel at a “fixed” speed through a “homogeneous” medium, regardless of the velocity of the object emitting the waves.
Light also exhibits the Doppler Effect in space.
So there is an indication that some similarities may exist between the causes of the Doppler Effect in sound and in light.
Einstein stated that “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”, which is an incomplete statement, logically inconsistent, because thevelocity c in empty spacehas no meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space, or some other reference, as the logical reference for that velocity. A velocity simply must be stated in reference to something.
Einstein also stated that, “Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected by any means.” Which is indicated by experiment as well. So no problem here.
And he then followed with the assertion that “This is to say that the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.” (Paraphrased)
This second conclusion isnotfully logically supported by the evidence presented, and is logically inconsistent with the assertion that “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”. There are alternate interpretations of this evidence which are more causal and logical than this.
First, our inability to measure something does not necessarily make it meaningless. There are a myriad examples we can give of things which we cannot directly measure, but we have come to accept, because of indirect evidence which stipulates their existence.
We can however, from the evidence, reconstruct a set of conditions, which is causal, and yields results which match observation.
For example, if light is made of “stuff” that propagates through a fixed frame of space at c, and if matter is made of confined versions of the same “stuff” also propagating (in confinement) at c in a fixed frame of space, then we would have exactly this set of circumstances. We would not be able to detect our motion through space by using an apparatus like the Michelson-Morley experiment. Note: This approach does not relegate as meaningless anything which may in fact be quite important.
But if “the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.”Then how do we explain“light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”and the resultant Doppler Effect when a moving object emits light?
While I am fully aware of the explanation that EM radiation is represented by vector “fields”, and that they somehow could propagate through an empty space at a fixed velocity justified only by the math. That is a less satisfactory answer logically because it does not presentphysicalcause. This consideration, and the Doppler Effect, coupled with the underlying physical cause mentioned above, for us not being able to detect our own motion through space, yields two logically consistent reasons for looking at space as a sort of medium, with a “fixed” frame.
Lorentz transformations are a natural result of the situation mentioned above regarding the constitution of light a matter. These transformations are required under the circumstances where light and matter are made of the same “stuff” and that stuff moves at the fixed speed c in a fixed frame of space. This all occurs in a 3 dimensional Euclidian space.
So there is a more logically consistent, causal view, than the one proposed by SR.
When we run the math describing the situation where space is a medium in which the propagation of disturbances is a fixed velocity, and light and matter are made of these disturbances, we obtain the set of Lorentz transformations, and cause for “relativity” is shown, precisely and clearly. This is a logically consistent basis, and one which shows cause. In contrast to SR, which is a different interpretation of the same starting information, but does not show cause, and does not appear to be as logically consistent.
Are there ways to present this and related information which better illustrates the case from a logical basis?
Thoughts?
Chip
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at srp2 at srpinc.org
Click here to unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at srp2 at srpinc.org
Click here to unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171107/aefc58ab/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list