"xxein" <xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:edf49e62-fa6b-49cf-addb-18c4af75fb6f at (no spam) f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 17, 10:57 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb... at (no spam) starband.net> wrote:





"xxein" <xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:32dfd491-bdfd-4fc5-bc36-c734cce2e558 at (no spam) f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 16, 3:52 pm, Surfer <n... at (no spam) spam.net> wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:53:33 -0700 (PDT),xxein<xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net
wrote:

Don't read Bohr or orbiting electrons or clouds here. Just understand
that we see these seemingly biases all the time. They are not
peculiar. They are the physic we seek. But to which context do we
place it?

Do you believe that there physically exists objects located in space that
have characteristics (e.g., mass and/or charge) that simply are what they
are, and these "intrinsic values" do not at all change regardless of
whether
or not these values are being, or attempted to being, observed? For
matter,
we know the basic structure presented by nature to the macroscopic world
is
atoms bonded to other atoms, for example, a large crystal of iron we can
pick up and hold in our hands. After centuries of theoretical and applied
science, we now know a chunk of pure iron is made up of atoms and the iron
atoms are made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. Consider an
electron.
It has mass. Do you believe this mass is somehow fundamentally intrinsic
to
the electron? Please try to put aside any "observatory-centric" bias. This
question has nothing to do with measuring this mass, it is a question
about
how you think the real world is made up. Your "physic." Is the matter
outside of you mind actually matter "out there," e.g., do you think the
electron that exists in the water in your toilet, right now, is a bit of
matter that has nothing to do with you in terms of what its fundamental
characteristics are? Do you believe in an "external world, independent of
the perceiving subject" (which is how Einstein put it)? Strange, isn't it,
someone who is accorded with the birthing of the idea that "everything is
relative" did in fact believe in a completely independent external world.
He
called this belief the "basis of all natural science." If there is an
external world, it's characteristics *must* be independent of observation,
for how else can it be "external"? Certainly we need to shine EM radiation
to observe, and that perturbs atomic systems compared to us not shining,
but
when the atom gets perturbed, it is still a completely independent of
*you*
event. You set the characteristics of the EM radiation, but exactly what
are
the "independent natural laws" that govern the matter/radiation
interaction
have nothing to do with what you, me or anyone *thinks* they are. We do
not
have the power to change what nature *is*, we only have the power to
figure
out how nature *works.* Even if we could completely figure out how nature
works, we couldn't change it. That is, if you believe in an independent
external world, which "works" in whatever way it "works" which we in no
way
whatsoever can change.

If there is an absolute "rest mass" some particle has, such as an
electron's
"rest mass" this in a certain sense demands an absolute coordinate system
for the universe. There also needs to be some physical mechanism by which
an
electron can physically change its mass when it has motion in this
absolute
universal coordinate system. I have ideas about how this might happen. On
a
level higher, the atoms of a ruler must somehow be physically affected
into
a closer-together bonding structure if indeed length contraction is
physically real in an independent external world. The atoms literally get
closer together if the ruler is moving in this absolute universal
coordinate
system/frame. If this is indeed what physically happens, this happens
whether or not there are any conscient beings anywhere in the universe,
and
the "ruler" were simply a chunk of iron coasting in this big gigantic
universal space completely devoid of any intelligence anywhere.

Steve Bell

xxein:  You express your thoughts well.  I share them.  Now what do we
do about it?

Thanks. I thought you would from reading other of your comments. If you take
all this literally, i.e. that there physically exists matter distributed in
some absolute universal space, it seems to me natural to think that matter
is fundamentally particulate at a point in time and is in no way a wave.
This belief is either right or wrong, but I think that at every point in
time we call "the present" every single electron in the entire universe is
an actual uniquely-existing particle. That is, all (and I mean *all*) of an
electron's matter is confined to some small volume of space. It is "here"
and absolutely none of it is "there." This means regarding an electron, in
no way can it physically be any type of standing wave, which is everywhere
at once. There is no "probability of the electron being anywhere" except
inside the volume of space from its surface on downwards to its center. Each
and every electron at an instant in time is not spread out in space, or I
should say its center of mass is at some exact (x,y,z) location in the
universal coordinate system. In this paradigm, this is the physical truth of
how an electron exists, and has nothing to do with whether or not we are or
are not trying to measure the electron's position. Our measurements will
affect where the electron goes after an interaction with our machine's EM
radiation, but that does not at all change the electron's fundamentally
particulate, non-wave way "it exists" in the universe. After accepting a
completely-particulate, none-wave paradigm, there can be formulated a
completely particulate unified field theory, and that is where I have
attempted to contribute. But it will be rejected because it postulates
particles are actually true particles at points in time with definite,
exactly located centers of masses with exact and definite velocity vectors
attached. This particulate-based unified field theory is a theory of
geodesic motion in a unified gravitoelectromagnetic field, and it would be
rejected by QM if I presented it.

Steve Bell- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

galactic), we lose any objective observation. And because we live in
a galaxy, our view is still somewhat distorted but we think we have

"xxein" <xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:edf49e62-fa6b-49cf-addb-18c4af75fb6f at (no spam) f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 17, 10:57 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb... at (no spam) starband.net> wrote:





"xxein" <xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:32dfd491-bdfd-4fc5-bc36-c734cce2e558 at (no spam) f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 3:52 pm, Surfer <n... at (no spam) spam.net> wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:53:33 -0700 (PDT),xxein<xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net
wrote:

Don't read Bohr or orbiting electrons or clouds here. Just understand
that we see these seemingly biases all the time. They are not
peculiar. They are the physic we seek. But to which context do we
place it?

Do you believe that there physically exists objects located in space
that
have characteristics (e.g., mass and/or charge) that simply are what
they
are, and these "intrinsic values" do not at all change regardless of
whether
or not these values are being, or attempted to being, observed? For
matter,
we know the basic structure presented by nature to the macroscopic world
is
atoms bonded to other atoms, for example, a large crystal of iron we can
pick up and hold in our hands. After centuries of theoretical and
applied
science, we now know a chunk of pure iron is made up of atoms and the
iron
atoms are made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. Consider an
electron.
It has mass. Do you believe this mass is somehow fundamentally intrinsic
to
the electron? Please try to put aside any "observatory-centric" bias.
This
question has nothing to do with measuring this mass, it is a question
about
how you think the real world is made up. Your "physic." Is the matter
outside of you mind actually matter "out there," e.g., do you think the
electron that exists in the water in your toilet, right now, is a bit of
matter that has nothing to do with you in terms of what its fundamental
characteristics are? Do you believe in an "external world, independent
of
the perceiving subject" (which is how Einstein put it)? Strange, isn't
it,
someone who is accorded with the birthing of the idea that "everything
is
relative" did in fact believe in a completely independent external
world.
He
called this belief the "basis of all natural science." If there is an
external world, it's characteristics *must* be independent of
observation,
for how else can it be "external"? Certainly we need to shine EM
radiation
to observe, and that perturbs atomic systems compared to us not shining,
but
when the atom gets perturbed, it is still a completely independent of
*you*
event. You set the characteristics of the EM radiation, but exactly what
are
the "independent natural laws" that govern the matter/radiation
interaction
have nothing to do with what you, me or anyone *thinks* they are. We do
not
have the power to change what nature *is*, we only have the power to
figure
out how nature *works.* Even if we could completely figure out how
nature
works, we couldn't change it. That is, if you believe in an independent
external world, which "works" in whatever way it "works" which we in no
way
whatsoever can change.

If there is an absolute "rest mass" some particle has, such as an
electron's
"rest mass" this in a certain sense demands an absolute coordinate
system
for the universe. There also needs to be some physical mechanism by
which
an
electron can physically change its mass when it has motion in this
absolute
universal coordinate system. I have ideas about how this might happen.
On
a
level higher, the atoms of a ruler must somehow be physically affected
into
a closer-together bonding structure if indeed length contraction is
physically real in an independent external world. The atoms literally
get
closer together if the ruler is moving in this absolute universal
coordinate
system/frame. If this is indeed what physically happens, this happens
whether or not there are any conscient beings anywhere in the universe,
and
the "ruler" were simply a chunk of iron coasting in this big gigantic
universal space completely devoid of any intelligence anywhere.

Steve Bell

xxein: You express your thoughts well. I share them. Now what do we
do about it?

Thanks. I thought you would from reading other of your comments. If you
take
all this literally, i.e. that there physically exists matter distributed
in
some absolute universal space, it seems to me natural to think that matter
is fundamentally particulate at a point in time and is in no way a wave.
This belief is either right or wrong, but I think that at every point in
time we call "the present" every single electron in the entire universe is
an actual uniquely-existing particle. That is, all (and I mean *all*) of
an
electron's matter is confined to some small volume of space. It is "here"
and absolutely none of it is "there." This means regarding an electron, in
no way can it physically be any type of standing wave, which is everywhere
at once. There is no "probability of the electron being anywhere" except
inside the volume of space from its surface on downwards to its center.
Each
and every electron at an instant in time is not spread out in space, or I
should say its center of mass is at some exact (x,y,z) location in the
universal coordinate system. In this paradigm, this is the physical truth
of
how an electron exists, and has nothing to do with whether or not we are
or
are not trying to measure the electron's position. Our measurements will
affect where the electron goes after an interaction with our machine's EM
radiation, but that does not at all change the electron's fundamentally
particulate, non-wave way "it exists" in the universe. After accepting a
completely-particulate, none-wave paradigm, there can be formulated a
completely particulate unified field theory, and that is where I have
attempted to contribute. But it will be rejected because it postulates
particles are actually true particles at points in time with definite,
exactly located centers of masses with exact and definite velocity vectors
attached. This particulate-based unified field theory is a theory of
geodesic motion in a unified gravitoelectromagnetic field, and it would be
rejected by QM if I presented it.

Steve Bell- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 16, 3:52 pm, Surfer <n... at (no spam) spam.net> wrote:



On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:53:33 -0700 (PDT),xxein<xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net
wrote:

On Jun 15, 7:48 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’spoints
of view still further...It is...of great value that Einstein rendered
the theory independent of any assumptions about the constitution of
matter. Should one, then,...completely abandon any attempt to explain
the Lorentz contraction atomistically? We think the answer to this
question should be No. The contraction of a measuring rod is not an
elementary but a very complicated process. It would not take place
except for the covariance with respect to the Lorentz group of the
basic equations of the electron theory, as well as of those laws, as
yet unknown to us, which determine the cohesion of the electron
itself. We can only postulate that this is so, knowing that then the
theory will be capable of explaining atomistically the behaviour of
moving rods and clocks." (Pauli, Theory of Relativity, 1921)

Einsteinians love Pauli but are reluctant to explain length
contraction "atomistically". They used to teach Einstein zombie world
that the effect is "one of perspective" but now neither teachers nor
students think the effect is "one of perspective". They don't even
think the effect is "not one of perspective". They just don't give a
shit about length contraction or any other idiotic corollary of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Divine Albert's Divine Theory
is not a money-spinner anymore.

Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com

xxein: I mostly agree, but what is the true physic?

There is a physical explanation here of how motion would slow the
ticking of light clocks.

Understanding the Retardation of the Returned Astronaut's Clock and
GPS Clocks Using the Physical Behaviour of Moving Clockshttp://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/V14N4MCA.pdf

Finding a physical explantion of length contraction is more tricky.

But suppose the average distance of an electron from the nucleus of an
atom (lets assume spherical symmetry for simplicity) is related to the
two way travel time for virtual photons traveling between the nucleus
and the electron.

Then if the atom was moving relative to 3-space and the electron
orbital remained spherically symmetrical in the 3-space frame, the
average two way travel time for virtual photons in the direction
parallel to the motion would become longer than the average two way
travel time perpendicular to the motion.

However, if we assume that the electron tends to adjust its motion to
maintain two way travel times that are the same in all directions[#],
then the orbital of the electron would contract in the direction of
motion, so as to maintain such equal travel times.

# Eg. The two way travel time of virtual photons travelling
between an electron and the nucleus might provide
the only indication of distance between the two.
If so, an atom would "believe" it has a spherical
orbital when the two way travel time for virtual
photons between the nucleus and the electron in
the orbital, is the same in all directions.

The relative degree of contraction would be the same as that required
to maintain equal two way travel times for light in vacuum in the two
arms of an MM interferomenter, if one arm was pointing in the
direction of motion and the other was perpendicular to the motion.

-- Surfer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: It is more tricky to be sure. Our science isn't up to it yet.

The key is to ID the difference between how light can move vs. how
matter can move.

Matter depends upon how light can move. Given even a static sea, if
matter moves through it, the energy exchange will have to follow suit
(Lorentz). But the energy exchange has to follow with the sea also.
It becomes biased to a direction.

Don't read Bohr or orbiting electrons or clouds here. Just understand
that we see these seemingly biases all the time. They are not
peculiar. They are the physic we seek. But to which context do we
place it?

I just thought of something. A 3-d gyroscope. Does that give rise to
inertia? Doesn't an an atom have the same properties? Wouldn't it
give resistance to any change of energy flow it might be within?

Holy crap! Inertia.

I knew it was there. I just didn't know how or why. Just remember I
said "change of energy flow" and resistance to it. Gyroscopic.

I know that we all may have different notions of how a physic might
work, but this little gem goes a long way.

I'm no spring chicken to all this, but we all have our stumbling
blocks that prevents us from a more complete understanding.

But that is almost beside the issue of lc. Wheeler described the
effects right for falling objects and still missed the inertial
influence (sort of, but enough to distort the reality). If he missed
it, where are we?

Lc is not the same as td despite the same math description. Can you
see how we can make big mistakes with some math that is supposed to
coordinate our thinking?

Just thinking ahead, there is supposed to be a TV program that
correlates math and logic for life decisions. I cannot give credence
to such a thing. It is again assigning arbitrary values to unknown
conditions. You might as well call Oprah or (dr?) Phil.

Let's DO science without baggage. Are you ready and capable?

"xxein" <xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:edf49e62-fa6b-49cf-addb-18c4af75fb6f at (no spam) f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 17, 10:57 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb... at (no spam) starband.net> wrote:

"xxein" <xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:84904deb-3f85-42ae-a485-8c74219ea113 at (no spam) m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 18, 7:32 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb... at (no spam) starband.net> wrote:

"xxein" <xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:edf49e62-fa6b-49cf-addb-18c4af75fb6f at (no spam) f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 17, 10:57 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb... at (no spam) starband.net> wrote:

What would you like to discuss next?

We could go from bottom up, but I like to go from top down. To me, it is of
fundamental importance to describe the space of the universe. The best
mental picture I can think of that I believe reflects reality is a gigantic
"laboratory coordinate frame" within which resides all of the cosmic web.
And I mean all of it, not just the stuff we've mapped out yet. The statement
I just made has nothing to do with us observing anything. It is an absolute
statement about the true characteristic of the external world that is either
true or not true. To make it clear, I am referring to a big gigantic space
which physically exists at an instant in time we call "the present" and
contains, in that instant, all of the matter of the universe. I believe
modern cosmology has made the statement that space on this scale is flat.
But that's taking the standard paradigm that spacetime is GR, and physically
curved or not curved, etc. This paradigm says there is no such a thing as a
true physical force nor acceleration. Everything is from the "perspective of
the observer." I believe though, one can interpret the reason why we use
differential geometry, separately from the idea that geometry itself as
having some kind of physical existence. To me, space is physical, but
geometry is just our mathematical modeling of this space. The reason why we
should (and really, must) use coordinate invariant mathematical development
is for consistency of communication. I can develop a final set of equations
of motion for a rotating laboratory frame, that if I gave to you and did not
tell you what frame I used, you would say they are different equations of
motion compared to what you think are the correct ones. When we all agree on
coordinate invariant mathematics, we all come up with the same equations of
motion, the same form for these equations. This and only this, can be the
sole basis of why we use curved geometry to model gravity. In a certain way,
what I have just described is the principle of equivalence.

Against all (probably) who read this, I really don't think physical space is
curved. I think the gigantic space of the universe is essentially absolute
Newtonian, that is, flat Euclidean-Cartesian if you need to put a math tag
to it. This resolves all kinds of things, basically almost all of the SR
arguments on this list, which are fundamentally all about the symmetry
that's needed for coordinate invariant mathematics. People seem to me to
have taken too far the meaning of this symmetry, interpreting each
"perspective" as being equally physically real. If indeed there is an
absolute frame, then the true physical states of bits of matter like
electrons are absolutely relative to this universal truly physically flat
space. In this universal frame, indeed there are true physical forces and
true physical accelerations, and the equations of differential geometry give
us equations of motion that map out non-Newtonian motion in the flat space
of the universe. This is true on all scales, from the orbiting of bits of
matter we know as planets around nuclei we know as stars, or other bits of
matter we know as electrons orbiting around atomic nuclei.

Steve