[General] SR

[Chip Akins]

Hi John

 

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

 

Without knowing it, you have made my point quite well.

 

You do not have to throw out conservation of energy using a Euclidian space.
You do have to throw out other things, but not the conservation of energy.

 

There are clues in the experimental data which show us what we should hold
onto and what we should discard.  But the conventional analysis explains
away (or tries to) each of these clues, instead of reexamining all of the
information to see just what should be questioned really. So the
explanations keep getting more and more complicated, but nature is itself
still simple and elegant.

 

Just offering this to you my friend, so that maybe you will one day have an
epiphany, and all of a sudden see beyond the opaque barrier of our current
set of concepts.  With your level of understanding, once this happens,
things will become brilliantly clear.

 

Warmest Regards

 

Chip

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 10:46 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] SR

 

Hi Chip,

Thanks for your reply. You are right (and proper) in very nearly everything
you say - and I agree with 99 percent of it. The one percent is I think you
are quite mistaken in thinking that the space of space is, and can be,
simply Euclidean. There is indeed a partial analogy between the Doppler
shift of e.g. sound in a medium and the relativistic Doppler shift of e.g
light. The mathematics is different. It is partially the same, but is at
root quite fundamentally different. Look into the "relativistic Doppler
shift" or the "transverse relativistic Doppler effect" and you will see what
I mean. The underlying cause of the mathematics of reality is not just
something you can make up (like Euclidean space), but must (indeed) itself
obey and agree with some deeper causal principles.  You can go faster than
sound: you cannot go faster than light.  Here by "you" I mean you. You and
any material body (an electron, for example, anything with elements that go
round and round in circles). Material bodies are coherent and resonant in
their own rest frame (manifestly). This means that there MUST be elements of
the implicit wave travelling faster than light and slower than light as they
"move" in order for that coherence to be maintained in any frame. Light
speed is not just any old speed: it is unit space divided by unit time.
There IS nothing faster because it is the limit of speed. The limit of space
divided by time. This is the root of the harmony of phases, and the reason
why BOTH sub-luminal and superluminal wave-speeds are required in the proper
description of the universe or of any individual material particle within
that universe.  The point is that the wave must BOTH increase in frequency
(due to the relativistic energy law), AND the clock must slow down (due to
the relativistic law of slowing of clocks). It must do BOTH. There is not
just one "time" change (as Grahame partially suggested) but two. Local time
(and space) must be (apparently locally) fluid in order to agree with the
deeper causal principle of conservation of energy. This is very hard to
understand, but it must be understood to understand it! Energy conservation
in a matter medium involves bashing molecules around, in light it is
referred only to one thing - its frequency. This is not to say that space
and time are not fixed within any (inertial) frame, they are. Clocks you
carry with you parallel your inner clocks precisely, made, as they are, of
the same stuff. Space and time themselves are subject to deeper principles
where they relate to material (or energetic) objects. There is really no
point at all in arguing within one frame about things outside that frame,
but this is what you are doing by forcing your view of space to be
Euclidean. In doing this you are already lost in that you have thrown out
the conservation of energy.

It does indeed come down to primal cause, and you are quite correct to bring
that up. You do not, however, get primal cause by fixing space to have set
properties you happen to like and assuming its properties as a starting
point! That way lies confusion!

What I have done in setting up my new theory is to look what is in the
various theories that work in the sense that they have engineering
utility:quantum mechanics, general relativity and quantum electrodynamics.
Look at what is in them and then try to reduce that (non causal) set of
starting parameters in such a way that the things taken out may be derived
from what I leave in. As I say I am down to space, time, root energy and a
sharpening of the meaning of the maths in that it should have a parallel in
reality. The most important change is the implicit order especially of what
we call "division". If one does this then lots of good things happen. No
fields in: fields come out. No charge in: charge comes out. No "photons" in:
(quantised) photons come out. If this proves true in every respect (I wish,
but think I am not there yet), then one gets closer to understanding the
nature of reality than if one simply assumes all the things thus derived as
further axioms.

Coming back to the argument at hand the point is that, to get conservation
of energy for light, and the observed fundamental relationship between
energy and frequency for light, one needs to have, as well as the
transformation of energy-momentum alluded to by Andre, and corresponding to
the transformations of light-in-a-box in terms of energy momentum, also a
corresponding change in both the apparent local rate of time and the scale
of space. The word "local" is important here and has the meaning of "local"
as opposed to "global" in gauge theories. Local means more powerful and more
specific. The causal reason is that a particular photon has a precise number
of oscillations, its wave train length, which is a constant no matter what
frame it is viewed from. For this to be consistent with the conservation of
energy, space itself must appear (as observed from another frame) to shrink.
It does not, of course, actually shrink if you as an observer accelerate,
but it does, reciprocally, shrink if you accelerate it. If one could bat a
photon back and forth in a game of photon tennis it would continually blue
shift as energy was added to it by the bats bashes. If you could anti-bat it
it would redshift. It is this process that allows one to cool e.g. molecular
beams. Remember, the meaning of "special" in SR is again not more general,
but more specific. It is a subset dealing only with uniform motion, only
with constant velocities. "Special" here means "very restricted" not
"great". I think those who see it as some sort of barrier to progress
overestimate its importance in the scheme of things.

Hope this helps,

Regards, John.



  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 12:31 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] SR

Hi John W, Vivian, and Grahame

 

For me, sharing the concept that we may have some invalid preconceived ideas
embedded in our commonly accepted theory, is the only unselfish thing to do.

 

It would of course be easier to just watch and listen as each idea is
argued.

 

But is the spirit of attempting to help, and in the spirit of continually
learning, participation is of course required.

 

When we analyze the motion of many of our electron models in a Euclidian
three dimensional space, we see that relativistic principles are
automatically present.

 

If the stuff that light is made of moves through space at c, and particles
of matter are made of this same stuff, confined and moving through space at
c, then relativistic transformations are a natural result. This natural
result is framed in a Euclidian three dimensional space.  This set of
circumstances shows a cause for relativistic properties of matter moving
through space.  The space we used to model this causal form of relativity is
a fixed frame where motion causes a change in the confined propagation which
creates matter.  That motion which causes the relativistic changes, is and
must be referenced ultimately to the space the particles are in.  So if this
is the cause for relativity, which seems likely, then all motion is NOT
relative. But rather, all motion is relative to space. 

 

Experimentally we get pretty much the same answers in either version of
relativity, but the one which is founded on cause seems to be the more
likely of the two.

 

If we use the all motion is relative approach, we must throw out the causal
mechanisms we found using the fixed speed of light in empty space, and try
to invent new cause. There is only one relativity, and one or the other of
these scenarios must be chosen.

 

There are many experimental indications that light does indeed travel at a
fixed speed in empty space. If this is true then there must be a cause. It
comes down to a simple matter in the end. Do we prefer to accept
experimentally compatible theory based on assignable cause, or do we prefer
to accept experimentally compatible theory based on arbitrary mind
stimulating conjecture and ignore fundamental cause?  

 

John W.  If we view space and fields using the contemporary framework, and
never explore any framework outside that narrow definition then, yes, it
indeed does limit our ability to see the range of possibilities.  So yes, it
does prevent us from exploring and finding the answers if they actually lie
outside that accepted set of boundaries. It often takes us a long time to
see that what we have believed is not a reflection of the reality of nature.
Until we really look, we don't know how profound an impact a simple
misconception has had on our body of understanding.

 

 

Warm Regards

 

Chip

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 4:07 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >
Subject: Re: [General] SR

 

Dear Grahame,

I'm intrigued. Whyever do you think the idea that all inertial frames are
equivalent is holding up progress? Comments in red below

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 11:25 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] SR

Dear Viv,

 

I'll try just once again:

 

(a)  I don't believe I've heard anyone in this group propose that there's an
absolute reference point in the cosmos.  Such a suggestion would of course
be meaningless without a defined set of axes accompanying it - and even then
the concept would be highly problematic.  It appears that you may be
confusing this with the point that IS at issue, since you don't appear to
have addressed that point in any way (repeated yet again under (d) below).

 

(b)  As far as I know, nobody in this group takes issue with the abundance
of experimental evidence showing that the speed of light measures
identically from/in every inertial reference frame; I myself have reiterated
time and time again (including most recently in my post yesterday) that the
experimental evidence precisely fits the accepted model of SR, including the
measured invariance of light speed from all such frames (please note my use
of the term 'measured').  [The fact that you feel the need to reproduce such
copious evidence in support of this point again suggests to me that you
appear to have misunderstood the absolutely fundamental point at issue.]

 

(c)  Also, I agree with you 100% - as I believe certain others in this group
do also - that the cyclic-photon (or whatever one chooses to call it) model
of particle structure fully accounts for this observed phenomenon, together
with others grouped under 'Relativity'.  I've made this point myself many
times, as I believe Chip has also.  I agree totally, therefore, that this
structure provides for the causation of 'Relativistic' phenomena, including
the invariance of the measured speed of light (there's that 'measured'
again!).

 

(d)  That last point actually underlines the whole crux of the matter: (i)
there is no need for the generally accepted proposal that all inertial
reference frames are objectively equivalent; 

 

Agreed, but this is certainly NOT generally accepted. There is merely a
statement that IF one takes this as a premise, THEN certain things follow (a
good many of which happen to coincide with observed reality). There is, as
far as I know, no proof of premise in ANY theory. By definition any logical
construct rests on its axioms. One can find a deeper theory which contains
another, but it then rests once again on its own axioms, but subsumes the
other. There are, as I have said before, a whole basket load of theories
which lead to SR, including some that predate Einstein relativity. So what?

 

There is a good argument anyway to say that there is no such thing as a
truly inertial frame (isn't this what you have argued effectively in your
redshift argument in the past Viv?).

 

(ii) there is no evidence to support this assertion (which is not the same
as the truism that measured speed of light in all frames is invariant);

 

On the contrary there is evidence that the assertion is false - in detail.
One can easily load a spaceship with instrumentation that can readily
distinguish between different inertial frames. This is not a big item for
discussion.

 

(iii) there is no causation offered to support that notion. 

 

Look, any theory rests on a set of axioms for which there is no "cause". As
I said in the previous note Maxwell contains implicitly, space, time,
multiplication, division, differentiation, charge, and fields, none of which
are given a "cause". The axioms are merely assumed. This is the way theories
work. You make some shit up and then see in how far your shit agrees with
observed reality. Ok, I agree that there is a sociological problem, in that
in any era there is a general consensus as to what axioms are "true". If
that is what you have been arguing must be challenged all along I am with
you 100 percent!

 

This is the issue that exercises and drives me and others who question the
veracity of SR as it is generally preached: the claim that all inertial
frames are objectively symmetric does not follow logically from the data
showing that this appears to be the case - in fact, as you yourself have
noted, that appearance is fully explained by cyclic-photon particle
structure. [Just to briefly clarify the distinction between this and "an
absolute reference point" somewhere in the cosmos: the CMB defines a unique
reference frame - but I don't think anyone would suggest that it defines a
reference point of any kind.]

 

There are a lot of preachers preaching, but most of them do not really
understand relativity beyond SR at all. Grahame, this is not and has never
been a claim of SR. SR is just the simple set of relations - the
trigonometry of rulers and clocks in uniform motion, as measured by rulers
and clocks (made of light, or slower stuff than light). SR itself does not
contain, or need,   "the claim that all inertial frames are objectively
symmetric". . One can derive it simply from the properties of confined
light, as you say and as I have done years (decades!) ago. So have many
others. For goodness sake what is all the fuss about? 

 

I really don't know how else to put this.  This issue does not question any
of the points you've made - it agrees with them 100% - apart from your non
sequitur (in my view) that "SR is not a good [consideration] to challenge".
Certainly SR as an observer effect is beyond question; to claim that it
should be accepted without question in its present widely-accepted form - as
an objective reality rather than a subjective experience, in relation to
frame symmetry - is in my view totally counter to the best principles of
scientific inquiry.

 


Look, I kind of agree with this, but do not agree at all that "other people"
think that, or ever thought that, SR is "an objective reality". The whole
initial point was, in fact, exactly the opposite: an argument against any
particular objective reality. I certainly do not, and never did thing that
SR is "an objective reality"even as a fresh undergrad meeting it for the
first time. Good grief, why oh why are we arguing about this?

 

Viv, I really don't know how to put this as strongly as I feel it needs to
be put.  All the evidence that I've seen points to 100+ years of
self-delusion by the scientific mainstream, painting itself into a corner
with unquestioning acceptance of a proposal that's illogical, unproven,
unexplained and now counter to our understanding of the structure of
material particles which renders it totally superfluous.  This is not in any
way to discount the raft of evidence that you've provided - simply to state
that it has no bearing on the point I'm making.  To propose "Nothing to see
here, let's consider something more worthwhile" (as you seem to be in your
last sentence) is IMO to advocate perpetuation of a misconception that's
arguably blocking our access to a potentially vast field of new scientific
discoveries.  Some of those potential discoveries could be make-or-break for
the future of our species.

 

I think this may be true. In making up a new theory one must always question
the bases, of course - but one has to replace them with something that
explains all of experiment, and there remains the fact that the analogy of
light waves, and the Doppler shift of light as it is observed,is not
consistent with there being a medium in the same way that sound is carried
by matter for example. One needs to do better than this. As to your specific
point: I do not see how the principle of equivalence of inertial frames
affects this either way, either impeding or helping it at all. Rotating
light, for example is as non-inertial as one can get and remain physical!

 

That's all.

 

Grahame

 

That's all from me too!

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 11:25 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] SR

Dear Viv,

 

I'll try just once again:

 

(a)  I don't believe I've heard anyone in this group propose that there's an
absolute reference point in the cosmos.  Such a suggestion would of course
be meaningless without a defined set of axes accompanying it - and even then
the concept would be highly problematic.  It appears that you may be
confusing this with the point that IS at issue, since you don't appear to
have addressed that point in any way (repeated yet again under (d) below).

 

(b)  As far as I know, nobody in this group takes issue with the abundance
of experimental evidence showing that the speed of light measures
identically from/in every inertial reference frame; I myself have reiterated
time and time again (including most recently in my post yesterday) that the
experimental evidence precisely fits the accepted model of SR, including the
measured invariance of light speed from all such frames (please note my use
of the term 'measured').  [The fact that you feel the need to reproduce such
copious evidence in support of this point again suggests to me that you
appear to have misunderstood the absolutely fundamental point at issue.]

 

(c)  Also, I agree with you 100% - as I believe certain others in this group
do also - that the cyclic-photon (or whatever one chooses to call it) model
of particle structure fully accounts for this observed phenomenon, together
with others grouped under 'Relativity'.  I've made this point myself many
times, as I believe Chip has also.  I agree totally, therefore, that this
structure provides for the causation of 'Relativistic' phenomena, including
the invariance of the measured speed of light (there's that 'measured'
again!).

 

(d)  That last point actually underlines the whole crux of the matter: (i)
there is no need for the generally accepted proposal that all inertial
reference frames are objectively equivalent; (ii) there is no evidence to
support this assertion (which is not the same as the truism that measured
speed of light in all frames is invariant); (iii) there is no causation
offered to support that notion.  This is the issue that exercises and drives
me and others who question the veracity of SR as it is generally preached:
the claim that all inertial frames are objectively symmetric does not follow
logically from the data showing that this appears to be the case - in fact,
as you yourself have noted, that appearance is fully explained by
cyclic-photon particle structure. [Just to briefly clarify the distinction
between this and "an absolute reference point" somewhere in the cosmos: the
CMB defines a unique reference frame - but I don't think anyone would
suggest that it defines a reference point of any kind.]

 

I really don't know how else to put this.  This issue does not question any
of the points you've made - it agrees with them 100% - apart from your non
sequitur (in my view) that "SR is not a good [consideration] to challenge".
Certainly SR as an observer effect is beyond question; to claim that it
should be accepted without question in its present widely-accepted form - as
an objective reality rather than a subjective experience, in relation to
frame symmetry - is in my view totally counter to the best principles of
scientific inquiry.

 

Viv, I really don't know how to put this as strongly as I feel it needs to
be put.  All the evidence that I've seen points to 100+ years of
self-delusion by the scientific mainstream, painting itself into a corner
with unquestioning acceptance of a proposal that's illogical, unproven,
unexplained and now counter to our understanding of the structure of
material particles which renders it totally superfluous.  This is not in any
way to discount the raft of evidence that you've provided - simply to state
that it has no bearing on the point I'm making.  To propose "Nothing to see
here, let's consider something more worthwhile" (as you seem to be in your
last sentence) is IMO to advocate perpetuation of a misconception that's
arguably blocking our access to a potentially vast field of new scientific
discoveries.  Some of those potential discoveries could be make-or-break for
the future of our species.

 

That's all.

 

Grahame

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171109/82b2c6eb/attachment.html>