|
Chatroom |
|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
18-January-2007, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
POAMS: The New World Synthesis by Viv Pope et al.
The New World Synthesis, of Viv Pope et al. Instalment 1This new thread for the BAUT (Bad Astronomy and Universe Today) forum is a spin-off from an earlier thread started by a senior member of the group writing under the pseudonym ‘North’. The reason for this spin-off is what became, as another senior member, Bob Angstrom described it, ‘the long and scattered nature’ of that thread. That thread was entitled ‘The speed of light is infinite’, and what happened was that it became impossible to contain that issue within the narrow channel of simple yea’s and nay’s in answer to the question. Eventually, the full implicational structure of the positive answer to that question began to emerge. This was mainly in the name of POAMS (the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis) as described on the website www.poams.org. POAMS is the acronym of a group of heretical academics from departments of Philosophy, Maths, Physics and Electronic Engineering, who have published books on the subject of ‘Instantaneous Action at a Distance’ (IAAAD).This overflow of the subject from its original narrow channel into the philosophical floodplain introduces a whole new paradigm of modern physics which includes maths, relativity (Special and General), quantum theory, gravitation theory, electronic theory, etc. within the context of a neo-Machian science-philosophy called Normal Realism (see Google Search). In this thread, the Synthesis (of more than fifty years in the making) starts with a short correspondence between Viv Pope and Albert Einstein in 1954. It is now far too big a chunk to be presented all at once. For this reason it will be presented, here, in relatively small instalments, inviting comments and criticisms from BAUT readers who may input to this thread in the ususl way for the purpose of continuing development.This is Instalment 1. Watch this space for instalment 2. Last edited by VivPope : 18-January-2007 at 06:03 PM. |
|
19-January-2007, 12:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Installment 2
Post 2 In POAMS all observed motion is angular momentum. Newton’s theoretical ideal of rectilinear force-free motion is approached only as the radial parameter of the angular momentum mvr tends to infinity (a circle of infinite radius being a straight line). It follows, then, that all finite angular momentum is naturally curved, or orbital, without involving Newton’s invisible, in vacuo ‘force of gravity’ balanced-out by an equally invisible ‘centrifugal force’. Angular momentum is an automatic natural balance between paired masses, which balance is instantaneous and reciprocal, keeping bodies either apart or together according to the amount and orientation of the angular momentum, with there being no question of ‘vacuum forces’ being involved. The force we feel as ‘weight’ is simply the real force which objects exert on the surface of a planet whose surface radius is greater than the body’s natural free orbit. As well as being overall-conserved (which automatically correlates the free motions of distance-separated bodies in the manner observed in systems such as our solar system and spiral galaxies), angular momentum is also quantised in units of Planck’s constant h divided by 2pi. These units are what classical convention has named ‘atoms’, the simplest of which is that of hydrogen in which a single small mass (classically – and unnecessarily – named the ‘electron’) orbits a much larger, central mass named the ‘proton’ in integral units of that quantum h/2pi in the simplistic manner originally conceived by Nils Bohr). When these atoms interact, one of them (the ‘emitter’) loses a quantum of angular momentum while the other gains precisely that same amount – instantly, because the conservation of angular momentum cannot allow any delay in the consummation of that transaction. Such transactions can take place, of course, only between atoms which are precisely matched in resonance. POAMS calls these atoms ‘quantum accumulators’, and the transacted energy (action) quanta are re-named phota (plural of photum). This is to avoid the spurious suggestion of a ‘travelling particle’ as does the conventional name ‘photon’. (A fuller description of all this can be read on the POAMS website.) Recall, here, that in POAMS, on the quantum level there are nothing like the ordinary space and time of macroscopic observation. Ordinary macrospace is an observational projection out of patterns and sequences of quantum information in a manner similar to that in which the viewer of a video scenario projects its dimensions and characters out of patterns and sequences of screen pixels. More of this to come |
|
19-January-2007, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
B]INSTALMENT 3[/b]
What is light? Basically, it is what we see. This is both optically and instrumentally, in its full spectral range from deep infrared to far ultraviolet, to gamma and beyond. From the information contained in the light we observationally project the world as we know it, with all its usual characteristics of distance, direction, parallax, time, motion and so on, plus all the various qualities and quantities of physical phenomena. In empirical (phenomenalistic or relativistic) science, this information is ontologically primary (a priori), and what we project out of it is no more than secondary (a posteriori). On the commonsense level of ordinary objects such as pigs, barns, chairs, rocks, water and so on, these projections are seldom questionable – except, of course, in instances of illusion and delusion, mirages, etc. By contrast, on the scientific level, especially in physics and astronomy, the projections are far less certain, especially where the objects concerned are theoretical rather than observational. Failure to realise this essentially provisional nature of concepts at the developmental edges of Physics and Cosmology leads to stultification of those subjects. Eventually they may congeal into a convention-bound state which we conserve at the expense of promoting confusion rather than clarity. Many science people nowadays feel that this is what has happened to our modern, jargon-riddled Physics, which has long-since lost its connection with ordinary commonsense language. It is to this problem of Babelian confusion that POAMS is addressed. Based on the Linguistic Analysis school of the modern philosophers, Wittgenstein et al., POAMS seeks to root out, wherever possible, this obscuring jargon in favour of ordinary, unpretentious, common-language descriptions of natural phenomena. In short, from this POAMS ATM point of view, a too-conservative Physics, with a developed immunity to revision, inevitably becomes counterproductive to natural understanding. It is to militate against this theoretical decadence that more and more forums like this ATM (Against The Mainstream) one are now burgeoning. As may be seen in the following instalments, POAMS is well to the fore in this bid for a resurgence of commonsense at the start of 21st Century Physics. In the following instalments it may be seen just what POAMS has achieved alond these lines. |
|
19-January-2007, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Instalment 4
What POAMS Has Achieved A reader asks us to explain these achievements in the simplest possible, non-technical terms.(Abridged Edition) In these very simplest terms, the method of reviewing, in hindsight, the developmental history of our modern language of physics reveals that its vocabulary may now, logically, be purged of many words and phrases that have long outlived their conceptual usefulness. POAMS proposes that much of this terminology now serves only to cause confusion. The following are just some of the familiar words and phrases which prove to be conceptually redundant. 1. All customary references to ‘the constant velocity of light in space’. POAMS shows that this constant, familiarly known as c, cannot be a ‘velocity’ in any meaningful sense. The true meaning of a ‘velocity’ is that it is a measure applied to the motion of some definite physical object. Also, any velocity, truly so called, necessarily conforms to the theorem of the addition and subtraction of velocities. The measure c satisfies neither of these conditions, hence it cannot sensibly be regarded as a ‘velocity’. POAMS concurs with Herman Bondi (1964) that although c has the dimensions of a velocity it is, in fact, not a velocity but a dimensional constant relating metres of observational distance with seconds of time. This is similar to the way in which the constant 39.37 inches to the metre relates two different conventional measures of length, or in which the constant 0.45358237 relates metric measures in kilograms to imperial measures in pounds. The constant c, of value 299,792,458 metres to the second, just like these other constants, is the same for all observers in all states of relative motion or rest. This needs no explanation other than that these constants are products of pure convention. 2. Dispensing with the ‘velocity’ interpretation of c also dispenses with all talk of ‘photons’, conceived as quantum bits of light-energy travelling through space. If ‘photons’ were particles with mass, then at their alleged ‘velocity c’ that mass would have to be relativistically infinite. The faintest glimmer of light shone on an object would flatten it out of existence. Some argue that this absurd consequence is avoided by assuming that in its own reference-frame, the photon’s mass is zero. However, in Relativity it is axiomatic that the ‘velocity’ of light is c in all frames of reference, barring none, so that the ‘photon’s’ mass would have to be infinite absolutely and unconditionally. On the other hand, if the ‘photon’ has no mass at all, then it cannot be a ‘particle’ in any meaningful sense of the word. POAMS reveals, therefore, by logical/linguistic analysis, that the word ‘photon’, as applied to light, is just pure nonsense, as are all attempts to preserve the concept. The same goes, of course, for other associated words like ‘graviton’ (the postulated ‘photon’ of gravity). 3. The same sort of analysis proves that all language associated with ‘electrodynamics’ and ‘electrostatics’, such as ‘electron’, ‘proton’, ‘electric charge’, ‘electric field’, ‘magnetic field’, ‘field-forces’ ‘electromagnetic waves’ and so on are redundant. A single angular momentum formula, in which the conventional ‘charge’ in coulombs is converted into spin kinetic energy in joules, is shown to be a sufficient explanation of all the various phenomena in that traditional ‘electronics’ jargon-category. 4. Redundant also are all references to ‘gravitation’, conceived as an invisible and undetectable ‘force’ drawing masses together against what, according to Newton’s first law, is their natural tendency to remain either at rest or moving in a straight line in a universal ‘inertial space’. Newton’s ‘First Law’ declares that all force-free motion is naturally straight and his ‘Law of Universal Gravitation’ explains away the fact that nowhere is this straight-line motion ever observed. In the place of those two completely unempirical ‘laws’, POAMS presents a single empirical law of angular momentum which precisely describes the orbital motions of free-moving bodies without having to postulate the usual opposing and equally inscrutable forces of ‘centrifugal’ (or ‘inertial’) and ‘centripetal’ (or ‘gravitational’) acceleration. 5. That same logical analysis proves that all references to the ‘space-time continuum’ of General Relativity are not only superfluous but are also in direct conflict with that second arm of modern physics, Quantum Theory, which is based on the empirical fact that all fundamental physical events are discrete and discontinuous. POAMS finds that there is no logical reason for this conflict between continuity and discreteness; that Relativity can be seamlessly merged with quantum discreteness, right at its very root, to account for all the phenomena in both of those traditionally divided areas. There is thus no necessity to talk of ‘gravitation’ as an underlying metaphysical continuum in which, in the presence of massive bodies, is geometrically ‘warped’ and ‘twisted’ to produce the orbital trajectories we observe. POAMS shows that these trajectories are fully accounted for by the phenomena themselves without involving any of the usual intellectual over-elaboration. 6. POAMS reveals, in the same way, that the awe currently inspired by beguiling phrases such as ‘The Big Bang’ and ‘black holes’ is logically misplaced. There are, available, explanations of the actual phenomena that are far more logical and economical. POAMS discloses, for instance, something which is really quite obvious but which, due to the demands placed by the publishing media on scientific gimmickry, has been completely sidelined. This is that Hubble’s observation of the increasing redshift of galaxies in proportion to their distance by no means necessarily entails that those galaxies are receding from us. From a sane and sober, commonsense point of view, any inference from that observation that the galaxies and everything else in the universe was once contained in a ‘primeval atom’ the size of a nut, far from being an incredibly entertaining scientific fact is, technically, a reduction to absurdity – in other words, what logicians call a ‘howler’. The real unembroidered fact is simply that Hubble observed that galaxies manifest a redshift in proportion to their distance. To describe that as 'observing galactic recession’, hence an observed ‘expansion of the universe’ is a travesty of misinterpretation. POAMS reveals that it is just another of those theoretical extravagances whose spuriousness, by the logical method of Socratic analysis, POAMS exposes. In sum, POAMS proves, by that method of linguistic, logical and mathematical analysis, that all these conceptions are now surplus to requirements, that for anyone prepared to contemplate it, the prospect of a cleaned-up, de-jargonised, de-intellectualised language of physics which describes the actual physical phenomena without any theoretical elaboration is now definitely realisable. By removing these increasingly complicated, traditional descriptions of a world of ‘theories-within-theories’ in a world which is different and remote from that of ordinary commonsense perception, POAMS restores physics to a much simpler and conceptually economic state capable of being understood by the general public on a democratic level, not just by the usual priestly in-group whose days, so it appears in the newer Educational curricula, are now numbered. To appeal to students of the future, our traditional science will need to abandon its conceptual conservatism, with its dogged insistence on ‘scholarship’ at the expense of creativity, and seriously consider a wholesale revision of the language of what in better days was conceived as ‘Physics’ is now encumbered. A professor, at a Physics conference angrily reacted against POAMS by saying: ‘This is not Physics, as I understand it!’ The answer he received was: ‘No, but is it nature?’ In the following instalment, these achievements are listed more specifically. |
|
19-January-2007, 07:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Nice work. Of all the text in this thread so far the words in the quote above seem the most problematic. (I edited the quote and left the parts that I question). How, if gravitation is not a general relativistic curved spacetime phenomenon, do you explain the deflection of light from a distant star as it grazes the sun? (Eddington, Crommelin, 1919). Similarly, how (if at all) do you account for gravitational lensing)? Perhaps most importantly, how do you explain the following successful tests of Einstein's relativity postulate: The 1959 recording of a radar echo from the planet Venus; the 1960 Pound and Rebka measurments of the gravitational redshift; the Hughes-Drever experiment (1959-60) using nuclear magnetic resonance techniques; the US National Bureau of Standards confirmation of local Lorenz invariance; the 1976 Vessot and Levine (Harvard, NASA) comparison of hydrogen maser clocks (one flown abord a Scout D rocket, the other ground-based) desiged to test gravitational frequency shifts as a function of altitude in the earths gravity field? Irwin Shapiro's 1959-60 confirmation of 'time delay;' Mariners 6, 7 and 9 Mars orbiter and Viking Mars landers and orbiters (1976) transmitions (that produced remarkable improvements over the Venus echo experiments) that tested, again successfully, gravitational time delay; the 1969 Lunar Ranging Progam 'retroreflector' experimental tests of the strong equivalence principle; (I am not asking for an explanation of each experiment listed above.) In short, how do you explain the gravitational redshift and time dilation? Most, if not all, of the above seem to suggest rather conclusively the curved nature of the spacetime continuum. PS. Forgive me if the answers to these questions were already exposed in an other thread, or directly on your web page, which I read several weeks ago. Coldcreation Last edited by Coldcreation : 20-January-2007 at 01:20 AM. Reason: a clarification |
|
20-January-2007, 12:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Viv Pope replies
Hello, Coldcreation. Thanks for your prompt response. As for these experiments you mention, they all deal, in one way or another with light/radar and gravitation – and time, of course, in that context. Now, as you may have seen, POAMS does not deny the existence of gravity, any more than it denies the existence of light. The radical difference with POAMS is that on empirical grounds it denies that these things exist in vacuo. This is on the basis of the neo-Machian philosophy of Normal Realism, a form of phenomenalism, or radical empiricism, according to which all physical reality is defined in terms of measures, quantities, qualities, etc, which exist, in the very first instance, in observation. This is the essence of relativity according to Einstein’s relativist mentor, Mach. In phenomenalism, therefore, anything which is not observable, either directly or instrumentally, either actually or in principle, is unreal – that is to say, purely theoretical or ‘metaphysical’. This includes, of course, light travelling in vacuo, gravitational forces in vacuo and time (duration) in vacuo. Ever since the time of George Berkeley, arguably the founder of modern phenomenalism, natural philosophers (hived-off into what is now called physics) have tried to institute this ‘positivist’, conceptual paring-down method of development in Physics. Indeed, the ones in the forefront of this attempt have been mostly physicists – as, indeed, Mach was, also Bohr. Up till the 20th century, however, this ideally preferred approach to natural phenomena was deemed to be unworkable, at which point physics took off into realms of pure theory in which the entities with which it was concerned had little or nothing to do with direct observation. The first to take this departure, to his mentor’s disgust, was Einstein who based his (Einstein’s) Theory of Relativity on the completely unempirical notion of light as something travelling inscrutably in vacuo (This is Einstein’s notorious ‘Second Postulate). This Postulate has since been discovered, by Herman Bondi and myself, to be completely unnecessary. This was when we independently came to the same conclusion, that relativity theory is far more simple and efficient when stripped of this ‘velocity of light in vacuo’ assumption. In this way, and with some help from Einstein himself, just before he died, this phenomenalist remake of Relativity, without ‘light-velocity in vacuo’, has quietly gone from strength to strength, more recently (1985) in the name of POAMS, the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis. This replicates all the results you mention, of both Special and General Relativity. This includes orbital time-dilation (as applied to GPS satellites), the so-called ‘bending of light’ (pace Eddington, et al.), the Pound Rebka phenomenon, the radar experiment … etc., etc., all in completely phenomenalist (empirical) terms without having to postulate metphysical processes in vacuo. Unfortunately, like all revolutionary propositions, a full understanding of POAMS requires a depth of diligent study which most busy physicists cannot afford – at least, not without some quick assurance that time spent on it will be worthwhile – or cost-effective as is more likely nowadays. There is, however, no such ‘Quick about it, Friend’ encapsulation of POAMS. Only a thorough in-depth study of the whole thesis may suffice to achieve the Eureka-erlebnis that is required for a full understanding. That whole thesis cannot be presented in this forum – the intricate maths and graphics, for instance, could not be accommodated. Despite these drawbacks, however, POAMS has achieved much in academic and publishing circles that might be of general interest in this ATM thread of BAUT. Since the full thesis cannot be presented here, a list of the positive achievments of POAMS may suffice. (See my following instalment.) |
|
20-January-2007, 12:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Instalment 5
What is it, specifically, that POAMS has achieved? The fine details of this achievement are available elsewhere (see websites www.poams.org, www.vivpope.org, www.vivpope.co.uk). For present purposes, the following schematic overview should suffice. • The discovery, with which Herman Bondi concurred in 1965, that the ‘velocity of light’, c, is not a velocity but a scale-constant for interconverting conventional units of metres and seconds. • The further discovery that this non-velocity constant, c, automatically converts all three dimensions of space s in metres into time-measures s/c in seconds. This incorporates time as a natural fourth dimension in all descriptions of observational, or relative, motion. • This reveals that a natural graph of relative motion is a geometrical (or, rather, geometro-temporal) right-angled time-triangle, whose hypotenuse gives, by Pythagoras’ theorem, the time-dilation of a moving body relative to the observer. From this elementary Pythagorean formula is automatically deduced the same formula for time-dilation as appears in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. In this way, POAMS goes straight from Pythagoras to Einstein, bypassing all the theoretical superstructure of the conventional ‘speed of light’ theory and all the intellectual puzzles associated with Michelson & Morley, etc. Indeed, POAMS bypasses the whole theoretical tradition of ‘electrodynamics’ as conceived during that era. • Frequency is, of course, the inverse of time. This suggested that there might be a direct logical connection between the Pythagorean time-formula of POAMS and the formula for spectral frequencies discovered by Balmer and Rydberg. And so there was. The time-formula, expressed in terms of whole numbers, applied to quantum measures of action, provides, by pure syllogistic, precisely the formula for discrete spectral frequencies that Balmer and Rydberg discovered by their method of numerical trial and error. • It was also discovered that Newton’s first law of motion is logically redundant. To declare, with one ‘law’ that all force-free motion is rectilinear and then follow that with another ‘law’ (i.e., that of ‘universal gravitation’) to explain why nowhere do bodies obey that first law is completely circular and unnecessary. Moreover, it creates a whole plethora of invisible and undetectable ‘field forces’ held accountable for what is observationally plain, that all natural free motion is orbital. Newton’s ‘first law’, therefore, that all free, ‘inertial’ motion is ‘momentum’ mv is false. All natural free motion is angular momentum mvr. POAMS demonstrates this to be sufficient to account for observed orbital motion without having to assume the presence of two opposing ‘centrifugal’ and ‘centripetal’ (e.g., ‘straight-line’ and ‘gravitational’) invisible forces whose effects exactly cancel each other. The fact that angular momentum is an overall-conserved quantity is then sufficient to explain why masses move in relation to one another in their observed correlated, paired and balanced arrangements around common centres of moment. To move in any other way would disconserve the overall angular momentum. By the same token, the orbital parameters of spinning masses cannot be the same as those of non-spinning ones. For example, the ‘electron’ is ascribed a spin angular momentum which is huge in proportion to its orbital angular momentum. This implies much tighter and more energetic orbits than ordinary planetary ones. Indeed, calculations prove that for a pair of pure masses of the textbook values of the ‘electron’ and ‘proton’, respectively, the orbital parameters are precisely those ascribed by Bohr on classical ‘electrodynamical’ principles. • Another direct logical connection was found between the frequency formula of Balmer and Rydberg (see above) and the energy levels of the schematic Bohr atom. This showed that the exact values of the mass constituents of the Bohr atom (the so-called ‘electron’ and ‘proton’) can be deduced directly from these same formulae. This deductive connection also includes the standard (Bohr) orbital velocity and radius parameters of those masses. None of this involves traditional ‘electrodynamics’ and its associated in vacuo ‘forces’. Cashing-out the conventional ‘charge’ of the ‘electron’, in coulombs, into mechanical units of joules, equates the alleged static ‘charge’ with the mechanical spin ascribed to the ‘electron’ by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck. • In effect, then, POAMS circumvents, by pure syllogistic, and without any theoretical elaboration, all the customary conceptual paraphernalia of ‘electrodynamics’ and ‘field-forces’ that were spawned by Newton’s illustrious but logically unnecessary creation of his two opposing ‘rectilinear’ and ‘gravitational’ laws. Thus, POAMS dispenses, at a stroke, with the chronic problem of ‘Unified Field’ by getting rid of all ‘fields’ and ‘field-forces’ altogether. It also uncovers another direct logical route from time-dilation in the fictitious ‘inertial space’ to time-dilation in natural force-free orbital motion. Expressing the standard time-dilation formula in terms of its v-squared and substituting the resulting expression for that v-squared in the angular momentum equation directly produces a formula for orbital time-dilation of the kind that is observed in GPS and other satellites. When fully articulated (by Osborne), the formula predicts, to an extent approaching a hundred percent accuracy, the adjustments that the GPS and GLONASS engineers have to make in their satellite clocks as compared with those on the earth’s surface. The formula also predicts the slowing of clocks and other time-processes as they approach large masses. This is in the same way that is predicted by Einstein’s General Relativity, but without involving any of that theory’s metaphysical rationale. Moreover, since angular momentum analyses-out to ultimately irreducible units of h/2pi, it is automatically quantised. This replaces the Einsteinian ‘space-time continuum’ of General Relativity with an angular momentum discretum with metrical features similar to those described in that theory. In this way, the perennial problem of how to reconcile Relativistic continuity with Quantum discontinuity is removed. • In addition to this, the POAMS formulation predicts that the orbits of bodies are never closed but that they perform a ‘rosette’ pattern of precession, of the sort first observed with the planet Mercury. It also produces a formula, equivalent in angular momentum terms to the Schwarzschild radius, the limit to which masses may approach one another without merging in what is conventionally alleged to be ‘gravitational collapse’. • The POAMS formula produces no metaphysical ‘singularities’ (i.e., in ordinary parlance, absurdities), whether they be those of the alleged ‘black holes’ or the ‘Big Bang’. POAMS finds, for instance, that the dramatically described, but literally meaningless, ‘black holes’ can be adequately accounted for as the empty and therefore non-visible, non-material barycentres, or centres-of-moment between orbiting masses. Also, any necessity to believe in the excitingly named ‘Big Bang’ can be circumvented by a long-neglected logical alternative to the conventional ‘galactic recession’ interpretation of the Hubble redshift. This is based on irrefutable logic. The fact that all recessional motions are accompanied by redshifts does not necessarily signify that observing a redshift is the same as observing a motion of recession. From this it follows that the common assumption that observing galactic redshifts is the same as observing a universal ‘galactic recession’ is a logical ‘howler’. In any case, to persist with something so clearly and demonstrably fallacious is, by definition, a dogma. This leaves wide open the logical possibility, which POAMS explores, that the redshift is a manifestation of relativistic time-dilations in distant galaxies due to the increasing random velocities of those galaxies as, with increasing distance from the observer, they approach the larger and larger non-local accumulated mass of the cosmos. Calculations made on the basis of the values given by astronomers for the average mass-density of intergalactic space support this. |
|
20-January-2007, 11:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I still do not see, however, where you explain POAMS take on what is called gravitational redshift and time dilation (of the kinds tested in the experiments listed in my previous post). Could you please state clearly the mechanism that causes the two related effects. You write that you do not deny the existence of gravity, yet on "empirical grounds" (which empirical grounds?) you deny that "these things" [gravity] exists in vacuo. Where, then, does gravity exist? Coldcreation Last edited by Coldcreation : 21-January-2007 at 07:54 PM. Reason: typo |
|
21-January-2007, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You ask me how POAMS explains the mechanism that causes gravitational redshift and time dilation. Well, first, in POAMS there is no ‘mechanism’ that ‘causes’ either of these. The time-dilation is a purely logical consequence of the fact, first discovered by Römer, that distances in vacuo are times in the ratio of units c. From this it follows that as a body travels away from the observer, every metre it travels adds 3.3 nanoseconds to the reading of its clocks in the frame of the home observer. To return home, that body has to reverse its motion. That reversal, which is experienced immediately by the reversing body is not experienced (i.e., seen) by the home observer until the laps of time s/c. This makes the experience of the reversing event and the relative changes in observed clock-speed asymmetrical between the clocks of the body and those of the home observer. That asymmetry between the two times is responsible for the time-dilation. In this forum I can’t show you the maths for this, but the result is precisely in accordance with the relativistic time-dilation formula of Special Relativity, which you may check in the POAMS publications. Note that none of this involves any of the usual talk about ‘light-velocity’. Now, as for the ‘gravitational redshift’, POAMS demonstrates that if the v-squared in the time-dilation formula is replaced by the potential-energy equivalent GM/r, where M is the mass of, say, the earth, and r is the distance of an orbiting GPS satellite from the earth’s centre-of-mass, then that formula expresses, directly, the relative time-dilation of the orbiting satellite. This explains exactly the slowing and speeding-up of the satellite’s clocks as its height above earth decreases and increases, respectively. Generalising this result for other planets, stars and so on, provides a perfectly adequate explanation of redshift in terms, simply, of the magnitude of M and the distance r in an orbital angular momentum equation – but, again, without involving any talk of ‘gravitation’ in vacuo. This, of course, explains also the results of experiments like that of Pound and Rebka, et al. So where, you ask me, does gravity exist. So far as POAMS is concerned, it exists as the empirical manifestation of the real, measurable force which is required to prevent a body of mass m from following its natural force-free orbit around M in accordance with the amount if its orbital angular momentum. If the surface radius of M happens to be larger than the radius of m’s natural orbit, then m will press, by reaction, on M’s surface. Where M is the earth, every kilogram of m’s mass will press on the earth’s surface with a force of 9.8 newtons per kilogram of mass, which is what is customarily called ‘weight’. In its free orbit, that force on a body (hence its weight) by that same equation is zero, which makes it pointless, empirically, to talk about ‘gravitational force’ in space (in vacuo). (By ‘empirically’, I mean actually sensible and/or measurable, as opposed to purely speculative, theoretical or metaphysical.) The explanation I have given here, is much simplified. For instance, it assumes that all orbits are precisely circular and, in the case of the reversing-body example, that the reversal is instantaneous, which in reality it can never be. However those complications are taken care of in the mathematical demonstration in the POAMS publications listed on the website. Meanwhile, hopefully, this present, simplified argument may suffice to answer these very good probing questions. |
|
21-January-2007, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The POAMS description of the "Two Slit Experiment" (down loaded via the "speed of light is infinite" thread) involves path lengths as a geometric whole that macroscopically produce the interference pattern on the screen. The interference is simply that between the result of differing path lengths combining in terms of phase, the phase being a function of wavelength and path length. The collection of path lengths are present with or without the source being active, they are the quantum resonances that exist between atoms and provide for instantaneous quantum interaction. When the source is active (i.e. macroscopically emitting light), instantaneous quantum events occur between the source and sink but seemingly are affected by a macroscopic length.
I have two points to make: 1. I can accept an instantaneous quantum interaction between atoms, but we now seem to be introducing an element of distance (path length) to this interaction. By its very nature, the quantum event involves no distance (path length) or time. I accept that the irreducible quantum is a product of energy and time, but this is intrinsic to the quantum. To extrapolate the time (or frequency (1/t)) of a single quantum in terms of a wavelength related to a macroscopic geometrical path length seems difficult to take on board. 2. When you describe path lengths, I assume you mean any path drawn from a point source, through either slit and then anywhere on the screen. I take it we are not talking about straight line paths here? So for example a path could be drawn from the source to one slit, then change angle to hit (say) the centre of the screen. In this way there exists an infinite number of path lengths and their subsequent phase relationship with other paths. Perhaps you could clarify these two points for me. By the way, I assume that you would like all posts relating to POAMS to be posted here rather than within the "speed of light is infinite" thread, I don't wish to interrupt your present topic of correspondence with Coldcreation. |
|
21-January-2007, 09:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dear Mr. Pope,
I first became aware of POAMs reading your article in Galilean Electrodynamics and found it highly interesting. I am hoping that somewhere down the road that you and Mr. Osborne will write a book where one can see the full development of the idea as a cohesive whole. Perhaps you could find a way to further explain your outlook on the photon. If I understand the things I have read you argue that when someone shines a flashlight at me from across the room that there are no photons that travel from the flashlight to hit me in the eye. There is instead a nonlocal instantaneous interaction that occurs between me and the flashlight. I am still having trouble visualizing this as light has a measurable "propagation" delay that can easily be shown in the laboratory. If the action is nonlocal then why the time delay? Further, if someone is standing behind the person with the flashlight then why doesn't the light just as easily nonlocally get picked up by our new observer? Why should light be directional if it does not propagate as some distinct entity? Also we observe light being "bent around" intervening bodies. Why does the intervening body have any effect on my perception if the "propagation" is nonlocal to begin with? It would seem to me that intervening bodies should be irrelevent. |
|
21-January-2007, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 What do you understand by the angular momentum of a particle of mass m moving in a straight line? Is the angular momentum finite? (On the website, it appears to suggest that the angular momentum of that particle is infinite.) By the way, there is no "balancing out" of forces when a body orbits another one. The orbiting body is undergoing an acceleration, which it would not do if the forces on it "balanced out". |
|
21-January-2007, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
When light shines downward from the top of a tower its spectrum is blueshifted according to the observer located on the ground. Conversely, when the light shines from the ground up, it is redshifted from the perspective of an observer on top of the tower. This test was carried out at Harvard University's Jefferson laboratory (Pound and Rebka). The frequency of photons emitted by two iron (Fe57) sources were compared at a fixed location. They were located twenty-two metres apart, one on the roof of the building and the other in the basement (see this for the full text). And this, for other tests of general relativity. The attribution to the effect is that spacetime is curved, i.e., the photons have to climb out of (figure of speach, if you will) the gravitational potential well associated with the Earth. This is a first-order gravitational redshift. What is your attribution? I don't see what "orbital angular momentum" has to do with this general relativistic effect. Note that in a curved gravitational field this effect would occur regardless of whether light had a velocity c in vacuo or whether light was instantaneous, but one would still have to conclude that the field between source and the observer is curved. How else could this effect be explained? You wrote above: Quote:
Coldcreation PS. Len Moren, please feel free to intervene, this is not a two-party discussion board. Last edited by Coldcreation : 22-January-2007 at 12:14 AM. Reason: to add link |
|
22-January-2007, 04:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
