On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT), andrewgeorge...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Apr 29, 9:30 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:

Which one are you? Rag, Kirsty or the porcupine?

None of the above. I am just a software engineer who likes to read
physics papers

I don't believe it:

-you are too intimately involved ONLY with Cahill's ideas

I have also been investigating MOND and Scale Relativity.

On Apr 29, 9:30 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:

Which one are you? Rag, Kirsty or the porcupine?

None of the above. I am just a software engineer who likes to read
physics papers

I don't believe it:

-you are too intimately involved ONLY with Cahill's ideas
-the only thing you ever comment is the Cahill/Kitto papers
-you repeat exactly their mistakes
-you have been lying, cheating, twisting the facts too long on this
forum to have any credibility

There are two more members of the "Progress in Physics" group, so you
are one of the group members, fishing for comments from the
mainstream. The sad thing is that you don't apply any of the valid
criticism you have received.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT), andrewgeorges93@gmail.com
wrote:

On Apr 29, 9:30 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:

Which one are you? Rag, Kirsty or the porcupine?

None of the above. I am just a software engineer who likes to read
physics papers

I don't believe it:

-you are too intimately involved ONLY with Cahill's ideas

I have also been investigating MOND and Scale Relativity.
At the current time MOND is at an empirical stage--there is no
underlying theory to explain why it works. However astronomers are
using MOND to make useful predictions.

Scale Relativity is very interesting from a theoretical point of view.
It is essentially based on the simple assumption that space-time
geodesics are continuous but not differentiable. From that simple
assumption it follows that geodesics in space-time are fractal. From
that it follows that particle motion along geodesics must jitter. That
is, the average forward motion is a result of motion in both
directions.
This gives us two components of motion, the representation of which
requires a complex value. Hence from a very simple assumption, we get
the complex wave function of quantum mechanics. So there are papers
such as:

A scale-relativistic derivation of the Dirac Equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210027

Scale calculus and the Schrodinger equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0211071

That seems very powerful to me.

However, Scale Relativity does not explain where space-time comes
from. For that we need a pregeometric theory.

This where Process Physics first attracted my interest. Process
Physics predicts the generation of a dynamical 3-space with
topological defects. This gives space and matter in an expanding
universe.
The topological defects are sinks for 3-space, so 3-space flows into
matter. The geometry of a radially inward flow causes the acceleration
of the flow to be described by an inverse square law. So the
acceleration matches the acceleration we know as gravity.
Outside matter, the acceleration is related to flow velocity by

g = del v/del t + (v.nabla) v

This allows a constant acceleration field to be produced by a time
varying velocity field.

More specifically, it appears the above has wave solutions with waves
upon waves, thus giving a general solution a fractal structure.

So Process Physics predicts a dynamical 3-space, flowing in such a way
that the velocity field has a fractal wave structure.

Now if one converted this to a space-time representation, wouldn't one
end up with something very similar to the fractal space-time of Scale
Relativity?

If the similarity is sufficiently close, then Process Physics may
provide a theoretical basis for the fractal space-time of Scale
Relativity.

There is also a relation between Process Physics and MOND. Both can
account for galaxy rotation rates without the need for dark matter.

However, whereas MOND offers empirical formulae that seem fairly easy
to use, Process Physics requires flow equations to be solved using
numerical methods. So astronomers will probably prefer to continue to
use MOND. However, it may turn out that Process Physics is the
underlying theory that also explains why MOND works.

The above relationships are my own ideas. I have not seen MOND or
Scale Relativity mentioned in any Process Physics papers.

From time to time I have mentioned Scale Relativity. However Process
Physics is being more eventful.

Not everyone here is mainstream. I also like to communicating with
non-mainstream subscribers.

I take constructive criticism seriously, but it has not yet revealed a
fatal flaw in Process Physics. Consider the recent criticism of the
Miller data.

Because Process Physics predicts a fractal velocity field for
dynamical 3-space, the fluctuations in the Miller data can be
attributed to fractal fluctuations in that field.

If one does that, then the way Miller analysed his data simply gives
you a fluctuating velocity vector just as was predicted by theory.

Eg Fig 4 in
"Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed
Anisotropy"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Cahill_flyby.pdf

shows the component in the plane of a ground level interferometer
fluctuating in magnitude from 150 km/s to 580 km/s.

These large fluctuations are disconcerting at first sight, but they
are probably due to the interaction between the interstella flow and
the local flow into the earth that occurs at ground level.

But in spite of such fluctuations, it was possible to calculate, from
the ground based observations, an overall average flow of about 415
km/s

That result was first provided (so far as I can tell) in
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0306196

Now, nearly five years later, it turns out that light speed anisotropy
due to velocities in the range 420-450 km/s can completely account for
the spacecraft earth flyby anomalies.

This is in remarkable concordance with the earlier calculated average
velocity at ground level. But another implication of the concordance
is that there is less fluctuation of velocity away from earth, than
there is at ground level.

That is also something else we would expect from the theory.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT), andrewgeorges93@gmail.com
wrote:

I have also been investigating MOND and Scale Relativity.
At the current time MOND is at an empirical stage--there is no
underlying theory to explain why it works. However astronomers are
using MOND to make useful predictions.

Scale Relativity is very interesting from a theoretical point of view.
It is essentially based on the simple assumption that space-time
geodesics are continuous but not differentiable. From that simple
assumption it follows that geodesics in space-time are fractal. From
that it follows that particle motion along geodesics must jitter. That
is, the average forward motion is a result of motion in both
directions.
This gives us two components of motion, the representation of which
requires a complex value. Hence from a very simple assumption, we get
the complex wave function of quantum mechanics. So there are papers
such as:

A scale-relativistic derivation of the Dirac Equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210027

Scale calculus and the Schrodinger equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0211071

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:mvpf145ukddhq863hkv1juvk0pqbe8lcli@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT), andrewgeorges93@gmail.com
wrote:

On Apr 29, 9:30 am, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:

Which one are you? Rag, Kirsty or the porcupine?

None of the above. I am just a software engineer who likes to read
physics papers

I don't believe it:

-you are too intimately involved ONLY with Cahill's ideas

I have also been investigating MOND and Scale Relativity.
At the current time MOND is at an empirical stage--there is no
underlying theory to explain why it works. However astronomers are
using MOND to make useful predictions.

Scale Relativity is very interesting from a theoretical point of view.
It is essentially based on the simple assumption that space-time
geodesics are continuous but not differentiable. From that simple
assumption it follows that geodesics in space-time are fractal. From
that it follows that particle motion along geodesics must jitter. That
is, the average forward motion is a result of motion in both
directions.
This gives us two components of motion, the representation of which
requires a complex value. Hence from a very simple assumption, we get
the complex wave function of quantum mechanics. So there are papers
such as:

A scale-relativistic derivation of the Dirac Equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210027

Scale calculus and the Schrodinger equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0211071

That seems very powerful to me.


This an extremely interesting theory. I know fractal theory is related to
chaos theory. I wonder if this is another way to introduce chaos theory into
GR.

Also if motion in an n-body mass-based gravitational field is
deterministically chaotic, then probably motion in an n-body charged-based
electromagnetic field is also deterministically chaotic, an idea that I
think could eventually explain the stochasticism of QM. The motion of
particles like an electron would simply appear stochastic while the physical
truth is chaotic determinism. If this is true, I would have to call
"explaining the stochasticism of QM" as actually a complete break with QM
itself, though. In a certain sense, QM could be called a "special case" of
this theory, but I would call anything that shows the fundamental tenet of
QM, i.e., stochasticism, is actually chaotic nonlinear dynamics, and hence
fundamentally deterministic, a complete break with QM.

I think I agree. QM in principle allows free will. Although fractal

However, Scale Relativity does not explain where space-time comes
from. For that we need a pregeometric theory.


It is difficult to me to understand the question "where does space-time come
from."

Nottale discusses space-time as if it is an entity with a physical

This where Process Physics first attracted my interest. Process
Physics predicts the generation of a dynamical 3-space with
topological defects. This gives space and matter in an expanding
universe.
The topological defects are sinks for 3-space, so 3-space flows into
matter. The geometry of a radially inward flow causes the acceleration
of the flow to be described by an inverse square law. So the
acceleration matches the acceleration we know as gravity.
Outside matter, the acceleration is related to flow velocity by

g = del v/del t + (v.nabla) v

This allows a constant acceleration field to be produced by a time
varying velocity field.


In a GR gravitational field, what an acceleration is at a point in the field
is directly dependent on the velocity associated with that point. In GR, an
acceleration magnitude is derived as a function of a velocity magnitude, as
expressed in the geodesic equation. For a Schwarzschild field you can see
this in a paper I published at: http://sb635.mystarband.net/cip.htm. If by a
time varying velocity field you mean the velocity at some point in space is
changing with time, I can't see how the acceleration would remain constant
at that point. There may be special cases where that's so, but generally
it's difficult for me to think so.

This idea is counter-intuitive. But if you look at the above

More specifically, it appears the above has wave solutions with waves
upon waves, thus giving a general solution a fractal structure.

So Process Physics predicts a dynamical 3-space, flowing in such a way
that the velocity field has a fractal wave structure.


And hence the acceleration field is also fractal. Interesting.

I am not sure of that as the velocity field appears able to vary

Now if one converted this to a space-time representation, wouldn't one
end up with something very similar to the fractal space-time of Scale
Relativity?


Yes, per my above comment, but my second above statement shows some
potential problems, to me anyway.

If the similarity is sufficiently close, then Process Physics may
provide a theoretical basis for the fractal space-time of Scale
Relativity.


Yes, but see above.

There is also a relation between Process Physics and MOND. Both can
account for galaxy rotation rates without the need for dark matter.

However, whereas MOND offers empirical formulae that seem fairly easy
to use, Process Physics requires flow equations to be solved using
numerical methods. So astronomers will probably prefer to continue to
use MOND. However, it may turn out that Process Physics is the
underlying theory that also explains why MOND works.


To me, this idea is much better than MOND.

I should mention that Scale relativity has also been able to account

The above relationships are my own ideas. I have not seen MOND or
Scale Relativity mentioned in any Process Physics papers.


Go for it, sir, continue the development, this to me shows great promise.
Perhaps the replacement for fundamentally stochastic QM.

Thanks for your encouragement :-)

From time to time I have mentioned Scale Relativity. However Process
Physics is being more eventful.


Pardon the question, but what do you mean by "more eventful"?

Initially it seemed a speculative theory, but then some discoveries

Not everyone here is mainstream. I also like to communicating with
non-mainstream subscribers.


I certainly am glad I read your contributions to this thread.


I take constructive criticism seriously, but it has not yet revealed a
fatal flaw in Process Physics. Consider the recent criticism of the
Miller data.


I don't know any of your other ideas, but these are very interesting indeed.
I am glad you contributed to this thread.


Because Process Physics predicts a fractal velocity field for
dynamical 3-space, the fluctuations in the Miller data can be
attributed to fractal fluctuations in that field.

If one does that, then the way Miller analysed his data simply gives
you a fluctuating velocity vector just as was predicted by theory.

Eg Fig 4 in
"Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed
Anisotropy"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Cahill_flyby.pdf


Since I am a die-hard relativistic, it is hard for me to accept that the
speed of light is varying. But I'm sure you've heard that before.

I feel the title is a little misleading. From the papers I have looked

shows the component in the plane of a ground level interferometer
fluctuating in magnitude from 150 km/s to 580 km/s.

These large fluctuations are disconcerting at first sight, but they
are probably due to the interaction between the interstella flow and
the local flow into the earth that occurs at ground level.

But in spite of such fluctuations, it was possible to calculate, from
the ground based observations, an overall average flow of about 415
km/s

That result was first provided (so far as I can tell) in
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0306196

Now, nearly five years later, it turns out that light speed anisotropy
due to velocities in the range 420-450 km/s can completely account for
the spacecraft earth flyby anomalies.

This is in remarkable concordance with the earlier calculated average
velocity at ground level. But another implication of the concordance
is that there is less fluctuation of velocity away from earth, than
there is at ground level.

That is also something else we would expect from the theory.



It would seem to me, that if gravity is fractal, maybe the "fractilization
effects" are stronger the stronger the gravitational field where the
nonlinear dynamics are stronger, where the chaos is stronger. Maybe far away
from the sun, the fractilization effects are weaker, causing the resultant
"non-washed out" accelerations out there to better manifest themselves on
the spacecraft motion as a stronger than expected acceleration towards the
sun.

"Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:mvpf145ukddhq863hkv1juvk0pqbe8lcli@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT), andrewgeorges93@gmail.com
wrote:

I have also been investigating MOND and Scale Relativity.
At the current time MOND is at an empirical stage--there is no
underlying theory to explain why it works. However astronomers are
using MOND to make useful predictions.

Scale Relativity is very interesting from a theoretical point of view.
It is essentially based on the simple assumption that space-time
geodesics are continuous but not differentiable. From that simple
assumption it follows that geodesics in space-time are fractal. From
that it follows that particle motion along geodesics must jitter. That
is, the average forward motion is a result of motion in both
directions.
This gives us two components of motion, the representation of which
requires a complex value. Hence from a very simple assumption, we get
the complex wave function of quantum mechanics. So there are papers
such as:

A scale-relativistic derivation of the Dirac Equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210027

Scale calculus and the Schrodinger equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0211071


On a closer reading of these two links, I would have to say that myself
personally, do not accept one of their fundamental tenets. In the first link
it is said:

"Giving up the assumption of differentiability has important physical
consequences: one can show [2,3] that spaces of topological dimension D_T ,
which are continuous but non-differentiable, are characterized by a D_T
measure which becomes explicitly dependent on the resolution (i.e., the
observation scale) epsilon at which it is considered and tends to infinity
when the resolution interval epsilon tends to zero."

In the second link, in Section 3.2, the uncertainty principle (UP) is
introduced, and a fundamental characteristic of motion is tied to
measurement error.

To me, this says some physical characteristic of the external world, e.g.,
the nature of motion and the differentiability of spatial dimensions, is
tied to observational error. This in my opinion is a huge conceptual
mistake, the same essential one in the UP of QM. To me, there is no need to
assume that, and still think chaotic nonlinear GR dynamics is the way to go.
In this idea, the determinism of motion and the differentiability of spatial
dimensions are still maintained, but the essence of physical motion, which
has nothing to do with observing the motion, is extremely dynamically
complicated. Considering observation, then yes, it looks stochastic, but in
fundamental essence, it is not.

But, at least, these ideas are advancing towards a better understanding of
things. Hopefully these researchers will realize that an introduction of
measurement error into the true character of motion is a significant
observatory-centric bias producing a conclusion that there is no "external
world, independent of the perceiving subject." Einstein did not accept this.
He though that "A belief in an external world, independent of the perceiving
subject, is the basis of all natural science." I think we should adopt
Einstein's philosophy wholeheartedly, and stop being so
observatory/measurement-centric minded in our theory.

Those are interesting observations. Its possible the Quantum State

A scale-relativistic derivation of the Dirac Equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210027

Scale calculus and the Schrodinger equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0211071


On a closer reading of these two links, I would have to say that myself
personally, do not accept one of their fundamental tenets. In the first
link
it is said:

"Giving up the assumption of differentiability has important physical
consequences: one can show [2,3] that spaces of topological dimension D_T
,
which are continuous but non-differentiable, are characterized by a D_T
measure which becomes explicitly dependent on the resolution (i.e., the
observation scale) epsilon at which it is considered and tends to
infinity
when the resolution interval epsilon tends to zero."

In the second link, in Section 3.2, the uncertainty principle (UP) is
introduced, and a fundamental characteristic of motion is tied to
measurement error.

To me, this says some physical characteristic of the external world,
e.g.,
the nature of motion and the differentiability of spatial dimensions, is
tied to observational error. This in my opinion is a huge conceptual
mistake, the same essential one in the UP of QM. To me, there is no need
to
assume that, and still think chaotic nonlinear GR dynamics is the way to
go.
In this idea, the determinism of motion and the differentiability of
spatial
dimensions are still maintained, but the essence of physical motion,
which
has nothing to do with observing the motion, is extremely dynamically
complicated. Considering observation, then yes, it looks stochastic, but
in
fundamental essence, it is not.

But, at least, these ideas are advancing towards a better understanding
of
things. Hopefully these researchers will realize that an introduction of
measurement error into the true character of motion is a significant
observatory-centric bias producing a conclusion that there is no
"external
world, independent of the perceiving subject." Einstein did not accept
this.
He though that "A belief in an external world, independent of the
perceiving
subject, is the basis of all natural science." I think we should adopt
Einstein's philosophy wholeheartedly, and stop being so
observatory/measurement-centric minded in our theory.

Those are interesting observations. Its possible the Quantum State
Diffusion approach is closer to reality. There is a link to a paper
here that I looked at a few years ago.
"Quantum State Diffusion: from Foundations to Applications"
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9701024

I have noticed that Process Physics papers sometimes refer to QSD.

Interestingly, one of the QSD authors expressed this view

"Quantum measurement breaks Lorentz symmetry"
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906005

But I have not seen much written on QSD recently.

Surfer

But the equations are beautiful. I worked up the tensor algebra of the
Kerr
equations of motion (field equations) as linear algebra, for the purpose
of
computation. You can see this representation at:

http://physics.clarku.edu/cip/sbell/suppl.pdf

There is no actual derivation in the above of the Kerr metric, but I
followed very nearly Wald's syntax. It's a fairly quick explanation of to
how get to the computational equations. I must stress, that to a true
GR'ist, I took "license" with issues of coordinate contraction/expansion,
this was mainly to basically get what one would see with our "inertial
brains". I wrote an orbit simulation, "fully Kerr," and generated the
following plots:

http://physics.clarku.edu/cip/sbell/fig1.pdf
http://physics.clarku.edu/cip/sbell/fig2.pdf

It's in FOTRAN, I've been meaning to convert it to C, but for computation
speed on a Windows PC, FORTRAN is just as fast as C. The source code is
available, if you wish. This is for a 10 solar mass black hole (remember,
this is no-where as complicated as n-body) with a test body (the
satellite)
starting off with 0.14c at a 45 deg angle to x-y. The beginning
eccentricity
was 0.5, the reason for the loop-to-loops. With ecc = 0, nice round
circles
are produced, with beautiful deterministic frame-dragging effects bringing
the orbits out-of-plane. A shell can be produced like this. The second pdf
shows how if continued, a torus will be formed. This shows the wide
plasticity of Kerr orbits with their nonlinear frame-dragging effects
(geomagnetism). If GP-B doesn't find this, that would be a blow.

It could be at the birth, very small, almost differential, slight
differences in initial conditions of what-ever-the-hell were the particles
back 13.7 by ago, has by now, produced a gigantic chaotic, but
deterministic, "settling in to some gigantic attractor." The chaos could
have evolved very rapidly (inflation) attaining almost that of today's
complexity in a very small amount of time, and now we are just along for
the
ride. The resolution of this with quantized jumps in the world of the
small
(atoms) is very difficult. But phase space quantized to h_bar will help.

Steve Bell

"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:QZuRj.5921$ko5.1192@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

babaluyee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38d860c8-e0c3-4cae-8452-e3d0ae1e0f44@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the majority
view, held by most physics professors in the country.

Most - not all. Many, many hold to a different interpretation. So what?

Thanks
Bill




Hi Bill,

I personally believe this a tremendously important issue, that is, what
philosophy a person holds towards interpreting the equations of QM. Some
particular philosophy influences a person's belief about accepting things
like wave function collapse, etc.

Steve Bell