Farsight

I explain plenty. You refuse to read what I say and pretend it has no value. I really can explain Dark Energy, and Dark Matter. And it really is so incredibly simple. I feel sorry for this guy: http://www.newscientistjobs.com/list/ViewJob-NS20072624035.html

Spyman: the time dimension is "there" in that we use it to measure motion through space. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence to demonstrate that we can move through this time dimension. Yes, we say "time flows", but it simply doesn't. Yes, it's a dimension in that it's a measure, the original meaning of dimension. But it isn't something that offers freedom of movement. You can't demonstrate that it does, and you can offer no scientific evidence of this. Nor can you offer any actual evidence that "we all move forward in time at the rate of one second per second". This is an abstraction with no foundation in fact. So anybody who believes time travel is possible, believes in pseudoscience. All of this is so incredibly simple. It's quite amazing how people, even those who pride themselves on their rationality, can cling to baseless beliefs that have absolutely no evidential support whatsoever. If you doubt me, try showing me some evidence.

I can explain the Bullet Cluster. I can explain the unusual gravitational lensing. And the flat galactic rotation curves in spiral galaxies. It's all very simple, and it involves Dark Energy, but not Dark Matter. But nobody here would read my explanation, they'll carry on wasting years on neutralinos and other exotica because they have no real understanding of particles and the Standard Model. And they'll doubtless call me names to boot, so I guess I'll pass.

Sounds familiar. Hey ho. And nobody's read my paper.

I couldn't agree more, elas.

There is no interior physics, Norm. Put that print through a 1/r inversion and there is no interior. When your vacuum field is frozen because of a phase change, things change radically. If nothing can move there's no energy, no light, no time, no distance, no nothing. It isn't there any more. A black hole really is a hole in space. The event horizon is the end of events. And proper time isn't proper at all. Simple really.

I'm sorry chaps, but I'm not carrying on any conversations in this trashcan.

Not at all. The electron is a photon configuration. A photon is a propagating distance variation. You can annihilate a proton with an antiproton, and then annihilate the decay products with other particles to end up with just photons. It means the proton is a photon configuration too. A neutron decays into a proton plus an electron and an antineutrino in circa fifteen minutes. It means that in essence, matter is made of light. The motion of a particle, or collection of particles, can be viewed in terms of the motion of light. See the section on mass where I talk about helical springs. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. I claim that a neutrino is turn without twist. It has no twist, and therefore no charge. Without the twist it does not remain in one location, and thus it moves like a photon moves. Since mass is energy that is not moving with respect to the observer, then if the neutrino moves at c it has no mass. If it moves at slightly less than c it would however have some mass. Please Edtharan, take more care instead of being so keen to "disprove" me that you make mistakes. No. "Curved Spacetime" is not a fact, and saying so doesn't make it one. It's an interpretation, a name applied to explain the observed effects. Gravity is a fact. Things fall down. But there is no factual fourth dimension in which this curvature resides. You can't see it, or test for it, or show it to me. And you can get the correct behaviour by simply replacing the 4th dimension with a radial gradient in the permittivity of space. I offer my model for discussion and feedback. I can do no more. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Because they're interested in physics, and I offer a coherent model that perhaps delivers answers to many former mysteries.

Please stop sniping swanson. Please read the paper and help me chase out any errors. Look at page 30 where I say this: "Now follow the loops again starting from the bottom left and continue twice around the knot, noting the directions at the crossing points. Since each crossing point is encountered twice, omit alternate crossing points to only consider crossings over rather than under. The crossing-point directions are: up, omit, up, omit, down, omit." And DH, the first of the three papers you linked to does not mention the word twist. And do look at the dates on the other two. That said, I reiterate that much of what I say has been said before, and for the record I do feel a degree of warmth towards LQG and Lee Smolin.

The motion is through space. Not through spacetime. It means gravity isn't curved spacetime. Instead it's a gradient in the properties of space, and electromagnetism is twisted space. It isn't too long. There's plenty of papers out there longer than this. It definitely isn't wrong about time. And there's lots of topics in here worthy of note. And for many of them, somewhere, somehow, you will find that somebody has come up with the idea before. And not just once. The item I think is most important is Space is a one trick pony and the only trick is distance: the photon is a propagating variation in distance, and just about everything else comes from that. You have read the paper haven't you? Surely you would have spotted that? And the bit about Planck's Constant. And the fine structure constant? See page 30 of my paper. You haven't read it have you? "The helicity that we call neutrino spin tells us the direction of the running loop. In a neutrino the left-handed spin is a rotation around the running loop that is opposite to the direction of propagation. The antineutrino is the same loop, but running the other way. The neutrino or antineutrino travels, and if it travels slower than light it has mass. That’s because our new view of mass tells us that mass is merely a measure of the amount of energy that is not moving with respect to the observer. It’s a sliding scale: if the energy is moving at c like a photon, we observe none of the energy as mass. If the energy is “going nowhere fast” like an electron, we observe all the energy as mass. Ergo if a neutrino is travelling a little less than c, it has a little mass. Should its speed vary for any reason, such as a weak interaction, its mass will also vary. We can envisage an analogy wherein neutrinos are made of slender spring steel, and the loops tighten or become multiple loops, like a coil. The neutrino can thus oscillate, and an electron neutrino can look like a muon neutrino". Whoa. I have a coherent model. You're saying it's a logical fallacy? No it isn't. Everything fits. And I'd be grateful if you could read the paper so that you understand where I'm coming from. No it doesn't. The space is there! Look hold your arms out. There it is! And I don't dismiss your arguments. I'm just trying to show you what's there. Now I think I've showed you enough. Please can we move on.

Sorry if I didn't reply prevoiusly. It wasn't intentional. Time is a dimension in that you can measure it. But you can't move through it like you can move through the three dimensions of space. And what you're really measuring isn't time, it's motion through the three dimensions of space. Where there's no apparent motion and you're merely sitting there looking at your watch, there is motion. It's going on all the time, in your electrons and atoms, and in your watch and in your brain. Re the photon, see paper pages 10, 11, 26, 27 and references 9 and 19. How would you measure a distance without any form of motion? Observe a ruler. But see Jacques' post and my response - in a way, motion is all. You couldn't even observe the ruler if light didn't move to your eye and signals didn't move through your brain.

It's like this. But inside out.

Gravity is normally considered to be "curved spacetime", but I like to think of it as the "reaction" to "action", the latter being closely associated with energy. This energy might be in the form of a 1022KeV gamma photon, or an electron/positron pair. It doesn't matter which. This energy propagates at a maximum velocity c. If the action is limited to c, then I can see no way in which the reaction can move any faster. The two are always intimately linked. So I can't envisage a change in gravity propagating at a velocity that exceeds c.

You can't have an internal state change without some motion. Consider a nice simple particle like an electron. It exhibits jitter or "zitterbewegung". You can create one along with a positron from a gamma photon using pair production, and destroy it via annihilation with the positron, yielding two half-sized gamma photons. All the electron ever really was, was a photon "tied in a knot". The photon is moving, whizzing around inside. The electorn is chock full of motion. In a way, that's all it is. You can't have a particle without motion, never mind a "state change". No. Note that I say time exists like heat exists. When you look beyond heat you see the underlying motion. Ditto for time. Your concept of time is that it "exists" as a fourth dimension between events, and you're overlooking the underlying motion in the three dimensions that are there. No it doesn't. Come on Ed. I can show you space. We can stretch our arms out across the width of that gap. It's there. Like I said, time exists like heat exists. It just isn't what you think it is. Thanks for the shorter post. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Swanson: so sorry. But Edtharan and I have been discussing this for quite some time, and IMHO his long posts make life somewhat confusing. Yes, I know it merges posts. That's why I put in the separator asterisks. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Fred: they used the motion of the earth. Sundials. Or pendulums. Or water. Motion motion motion. Read the paper. Time is just the start of it. IMHO understanding time really is the key that unlocks all the doors in physics. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * If anybody wants a summary of my 40-page pdf file, see the conclusion on page 35.

People, with our innate curiosity and our desire to understand. I know what you mean. But see the paper, where I say: "..if the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. And when you say "after", note that you are employing time in your conceptual thinking. But OK, I take your point. In a way, motion seems to be all there is. A photon has a motion, that's all it seems to be, and it seems that all material objects are configurations of this motion or "action". Edtharan: please can you try to be more succinct? Your large posts are difficult to respond to. But nothing "exists" between the two events. Time does not "exist" between two events. That's merely your mistaken concept of time exerting itself as proof of its own concept. And how do we measure this gap? The second is defined using the hyperfine transition, the electron is a photon configuration, and all we're doing is totting up the motion of electromagnetic phenomena. We are measuring the "gap" only in terms of the spatial distance travelled by light! I agree that there can be two non-simultaneous events at the same location, but I don't agree that you can remove all reference to distance. The time between the events is associated with the distance moved by light in electrons, atoms, brains, clocks, et cetera. You're doing this, not me. You're using your current concept of time as proof of that concept. Length/Period should not be used interchangeably. Yes, a period of time is associated with a distance travelled by light, and we talk about a light year as a distance, but we should always remember that a length involves metres, not seconds. A duration involves seconds. Show me the length of it! You can't. There is no evidence to support your view that time is a length. It is simply untenable. The only length we can associate with time is the spatial distance light can travel during your "gap". And this travel is through our existing three dimensions of space. And I can't mail you a kilo, or a Joule, or an action, or a motion. But I can show you a metre, and but you can't show me a second. All you can do is count the motions in your watch then declare that a second has "passed". Whoosh. There it goes. Not so. Here you go: If the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. When those objects do move, then and only then can we conceive of time, for it is not space and time that are cofounded, it is motion and time that are cofounded. We observe three dimensions of space, plus motion through it. No it isn't. It's quite plain. See above. We can have space without motion, no problem. But not time. Look up derived effect. Also look up emergent property. I'll check up on this. If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies. But we are not! We live in a three dimensional space, and we can move through it. That's what's there. That's what we see. A fourth dimension is an abstraction, it is a fourth dimension in a mathematical "space", not actual space. It simply isn't there. What's there is 3D space and motion through it. But there is no evidence for any fourth dimension that we are "moving" through. It is pure abstraction and convention, with no foundation in fact. No, it's motion. Motion of light, electrons, atoms, et cetera, see above. No it doesn't. There you go again. Using your concept of time to justify your concept of time. Totally circular. Motion occurs through space. The +1 time "dimension" is derived from this. No, there is no evidence. The Shapiro Effect is described as being caused by "spacetime curvature". But what actually happens is that light takes a greater duration to skirt the sun. It's as simple as that. The light moves slower! No. We have 3+1 dimensions. And sometimes the light propagates through space at a different rate because the properties of space are not uniform. It's that simple. No there isn't! You cling to an interpretation that justifies your concept, claim evidence for this interpretation when there is none, and dismiss the simpler explanation that tells it how it is. When measuring motion we customarily employ distance and time together as speed. Distance does not necessarily involve motion through that distance. No more big posts please Edtharan. They disrupt the thread.

Thanks lakmilis. I perhaps think that "pure" space at 0k is no space at all. Do please print the paper out and read it. It involves only 3+1 dimensions, wherein light in a propagating variation in local distance, not in some hidden 4th dimension. It's rather simplistic and lacking rigor, but one has to start somewhere, and so much seems to work out nicely. You'll see that I say energy = stress x volume, and yes, sorry, there are some figures of speech in there such as "we call this stress energy". There will also be some errors, problems, and issues, which is what I'm trying to chase out by being here. I'll be grateful for any feedback you can give. Note that I think relativity is basically correct but is imperfect, or perhaps unfinished is a better word. Fred: guilty your honour. The figures of speech we grow up with colour our thinking. So much so that we find it very difficult to use alternative constructions, or break out of deeply-held concepts and conviction.

That's the sort of hands on "experiment" I get up to. These "spirals" are certainly 3D, and there's an inverse square rule in there describing the curve. Plot x² with the origin at the centre where the charged particle is. It doesn't rotate round the origin, so maybe spiral is the wrong word. fred: I'll get back to you. YourDadOnaPogoStick: Yes, agreed, but we want to know what's it is, not just what it does.

Help me out here. Imagine the hairball where every hair follows the same curved path where the curvature decreases with increasing distance from the centre. A logarithmic spiral isn't what I had in mind. I've been having a browse, and none of the spirals look right. This exponential curve looks more promising: http://www.2dcurves.com/exponential/exponentiale.html I'll look at it some more but I've got to go now.

Edtharan: maybe this will help: Imagine we’re at a cricket match, on a sunny day enjoying a beer. The bowler is just running up to the crease when I snap my fingers and call out Freeframe! Then I lead you out to the wicket and you peer at the batsman, and the drop of sweat poised on his brow. The bowler is spreadeagled in mid air, and the ball has just left his hand. We are privileged observers, invisible, not really there. You say to me “Farsight, you stopped time”. I reply “No, Edtharan, I stopped motion”. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * My knowledge level is rather mixed. Yes I know basic algebra and trigonometry and the basics of physics, but in some areas I know more. Do I understand the curl operator in Maxwell's Equations? Well, I've heard of it and its association with magnetism, and "rot". But do I understand it? I'd say no. This is in part because I'm not at home with the fluid analogies of vector fields, eg Gauss's theorem, or the separation between electic and magnetic fields. You know, I'm not even at home with fields these days. A little like that. But it's gentler, and the central winding angle is thirty degrees. Start with this shape. Now imagine you can move around it, and regardless of your vantage point you see the same sort of spiral. It's hard to visualize, but it's something like this: Not a lot. Sorry, I don't think they get to the bottom of it. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * See my comment above. I have some problems with things like "vector fields" these days. If I look at wiki for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field The vector field is the effect, not the cause. Ditto for the force. There's no fluid flow. It's just geometry. I have the same issue with "curved spacetime". Gravity is a radial gradient, not curved spacetime. Yes, one could perhaps employ curl and divergence, but when I look things up, the concepts just don't fit with those I've developed here. And with my weak maths, it causes me difficulties.

The knot. I know it sounds trite, but the electron configuration is a "trivial" knot. It's not easy to visualise. Ideally we need computer modelling to show it in the form of a movie. The travelling stress goes round and round because it's propagating through the twisted space caused by its own turning. The twist is static. The cause is dynamic. When the charged particle moves, the twist moves, and if it moves past you you would say space is twisting, and then the twist is dynamic. Later on in the "scientific paper" I say that all massive particles have charge, and that a neutron has both positive and negative charge. So it's both attracted and repelled, hence there's no net motion due to the electromagnetic field. Note that I say space is twisted, not spacetime. It's a three-dimensional twist. The best words I can find to describe it is "twist in" or "twist out". It's really hard to visualize. Imagine something like this, only it's three-dimensional and you can move around it, but it always looks like the same from any vantage point. Now imagine a mirror image of the above. That's the opposite "polarity". I'm not quite sure what you mean, but perhaps it's to do with the constant photon amplitude, which means an electron comes in one size only. The electron is the simplest knot, the trivial knot, with just one loop. Other stable particles are similar, but with more complexity. For example the proton is a trefoil knot with three loops but the same degree of twist. But come to think of it, apart from the "antiparticle" versions with opposite chirality, and missing out the massless photons and the neutrinos, there are no other stable particles. All this stuff is certainly no theory, it's a model at best. And a mere toy at that. Thanks for your feedback on this. It's what I want and need. I know I'll have some things wrong, maybe a lot of things wrong, and some howlers too. But there's surely something here that's worth following up. Ideally I could interest somebody else to do some mathematics on it, because I'm kind of stuck in a catch-22 situation wherein this set of concepts can't get anywhere because it isn't adequately developed with sufficient rigor, and I haven't got the mathematical prowess to inject it. I was rather hoping that's why we had discussion forums, to float out a few ideas, kick things around, and get other people interested. It doesn't seem to be much like that.

Frequency = 1 / T and Frequency = v / λ therefore1 / T = v / λ, flipping both sides over T / 1 = λ / v, now lose the division by 1 T = λ / v They can't have. We are talking about one particular frequency, one particular wavelength, and one particular period. The T = t is only intended to demonstrate that the official definition of a second doesn't tell you what time actually is, and palms you off with what is in essence "time is time". Hold it right there. This "separated by time" is your problem. You are building in a presumption that you later use as evidence in support of your argument. Yes, we will agree that the events are somehow separated. But the only measure of this separation that we actually have is in terms of the motion of light. We call this separation time, and I say "time exists like heat exists". But you don't actually move through it. The notion of moving through time is an artifice, and a figure of speech. Hold it again. A second has no "length". The only real length associated with a second is how far light would travel during this unit of measurement. That's why we always measure the speed of light to be the same. And the 64,000$ dollar question is: what is a second? What actually is it? You can't show me one. All you can do is not move for a second whilst light everywhere zips about its business, then declare that a second has "passed". It hasn't. All that happened, is nothing. You sat there doing nothing while the ever-whizzing light in our atoms clocks and brains did its moving. The thing we are actually measuring is motion. Not time. That's why I say time is a derived effect of motion. It doesn't matter whether you've made some small error. What matters is your conviction that time is some kind of dimension that offers freedom of movement. You're not alone in thinking this. Most people do. But it isn't. It's space up there, and down here too. And light and other things move through it. We infer a time dimension from this, but we cant move through it. The moving is only through space. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying what we're actually measuring is how much motion light would do. That's why I said time is cofounded with motion. No motion, no time. Noted. What dilemma? Motion happens. We see it. Things move through space. We have evidence of this every day of our lives. What I said is you don't need time to have motion. You need motion to have time. The motion is through space. It isn't through time. You can't move through time. There is no evidence, it isn't scientific. Time is just our convention for measuring this motion through space, comparing it against the motion of light, and counting up the total motion of light since the beginning of the universe or some other marker point. I think we're going round in circles again with this. Why don't we park it for a while? Thereafter please do try to be succinct and raise one topic at once.

But not always. If we really believed your line of reasoning we might as well pack up, give up, and go home. Please log on to my little website, click on the hyperlink at the bottom of the page to call up the pdf document, print the paper, sit down, and read it thoroughly. Then judge it. Please don't judge it before you've read it. I'd then be grateful if you could get back to me pointing out any particular errors or omissions. I'm sure there will be some, but at the same time I'm sure that there is some value there. Do you know anybody else who can offer you a plausible explanation of the fine structure constant? Or what Planck's constant really is? Or what a neutrino is? Or why we see flat galactic rotation curves and why the universe is flat?

You point noted. I am aware that the paucity of mathematical rigor and resultant prediction is an issue. My maths is what you might expect from an undergraduate. I can't readily acquire the experience I'd need here, so I'll look at some form of collaboration. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sorry if that wasn't clear. The electric field is a twist in space in the x y and z axes. It isn't "made" of anything other than the geometrical disposition of space. I don't think there's any axis of rotation that I can describe. The electric field of an electron resembles a three dimensional spiral focussed on the electron, which is a point of rotation. There is no rotation around the t axis if by this you mean the time axis. Thanks. Do note reference 9. I'll look him up. I have to say I don't know a great deal about knot theory or any mathematics associated with twist. However there seems to be a lot of material out there that I ought to read up on: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TwistKnot.html

I would actively like a specific review. I can't lodge it on arxiv because I have no endorsement. And if I can't convince a bunch of guys on a physics forum, what chance do I have of convincing the physics community? Regarding what good it is, it offers a coherent set of concepts that give an intuitive understand of how the world works. That has to be worth something. There's a lot in here. I would urge you to print it, and sit down and read it thoroughly. No. It's YBCO. That's its name. I give the chemical formula on page 16. It's YBa2Cu3O7. Check on google: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=ybco+superconductor

I don't disagree with that. Yes, there are places in this paper where I could use mathematics more. OK point noted. My level of maths is A level, though I do a little more mathematics than that. I was rather hoping that others would pick up on this, leaving me free to cover the concepts, the insight, the grasp, the things I enjoy. The recurring theme of what I've been doing is that there are thousands of very capable mathematicians out there who've been searching for answers for perhaps a hundred years. For some reason mathematics has been unable to deliver, hence my "back to first principles" approach. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * It's twist in all three axes, which is why I showed a picture of a twisted cube on page 15. How much twist is indicated by my explanation of Planck's constant and the fine structure constant on page 26. The photon amplitude is 3.86 x 10¯¹³ metres, the fine structure constant α = e²/2ε0hc has a value of circa 1/137, and is the ratio of the energy required to push two electrons together from infinity to some given distance, as compared to the energy of a photon with a wavelength 2π times that distance. As a simple geometrical illustration, if we cut the moebius doughnut and uncurl it to form a cylinder, it would exhibit a 180º barberpole twist. If we then imagine the cylinder to be thin-walled, such that we could slice it down its length and unroll it to spread it flat, this twist is transformed into a diagonal line across a rectangle of width π and length 2π. Sine 0.5 is 30º, which is one twelfth of 360º. A twelfth of the 511KeV electron mass/energy is reaching out as an electromagnetic field. When we push two electrons together, each is coupling with a twelfth of its mass, so we have to multiply a twelfth by a twelfth to get a combined value of 1/144. This is of course not accurate, but we only need to make the twist angle 30.75687º to arrive at 1/11.7047th of 360º, and squaring this gives us the familiar 1/137. Sure I could say more, or rephrase things, but I thought I'd given enough with all this, and didn't think of giving a "definition". I don't know. I've never heard of W. K. Clifford. Note though that in the popular-science-book version I have a whole chapter on acknowledgements, and the title is "The Same Elephant". A significant percentage of what I say has been said before in some form or other, and once you know what you're looking for, you know what to look for and uncover more examples. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Please do take the time to sit down and read it all, Edtharan. Some of the points you raise will be dealt with by later sections. Excuse me if I cut things down a little, since your long posts remain something of a problem. I'm sorry Edtharan, you're wrong here. Please refer to DH's post and check your facts. Also note that if you were right, and the second was defined as 1/86400th of a day, it would still be defined using motion. The two are equivalent. Just take a reciprocal. Again, I'm sorry but you're wrong here too. Please refer to DH's post and check your facts. Both are dependent upon the motion of electromagnetic phenomena. The second is associated with the hyperfine transition, and I later explain the electron as a 511KeV photon configuration. That means the second is intimately associated with the motion of light, which is also used to define the metre. I'm going to pass over this for the time being. Please speak with other posters about whether this trivial expression is mathematically correct. IMHO you're building your argument on very shaky ground Edtharan. Please backtrack and get this right. I know I can't extract any useful information from it. The official definition of a second yields no useful information about what a second really is. That's why I then look again at frequency. Please confer with other posters about whether this very simple aritmentic is mathematical sleight of hand. No, you've made the mistakes, not me. Sorry. I must beg to differ as to who is offering the strawman argument here. Oh come on. A metre is a distance. Wrong. No, we use time to measure change and motion. You've got it back to front. Change happens. Motion is what we see. Things move through space. We use time to measure it, and it is based upon the motion of light. There is simply no way that we can move through our measure of motion through space. You are measuring motion. Change. Not time. A pocketwatch doesn't measure time. It measures the motion of the springs and gears within the watch. Your original definition of a second measured the motion of the earth. The atomic clock measures the motion of the hyperfine transition. I do understand. Your concept of time relies upon your concept of time. But you cannot touch time, you can't see it, smell it, touch it, you can't move through it, can't see it flowing, and can't see its length. All these are abstractions that you take for granted. So much so that you are quite unable to examine the concept you hold dear. For the record, my concept of time is summarised thus: Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It is a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time has no length, time doesn’t flow and we don’t travel through it.