Science Forums 2

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by modest

I've avoided examining your work probably because it seems like a rather involved undertaking.

Actually, my work is quite simple; what makes it involved is the great number of things which flow from it.

Originally Posted by modest

My knee jerk reaction and my first question: if your fundamental equation can be used to derive a space-time then would I be correct that you would not object to using it—at the very least as a matter of convenience. I realize this question sidesteps the point of your presentation, but I'd just like to be sure you're not rejecting the utility of Minkowski.

I am not. In fact, I have essentially spent most of Sunday trying to find an exchange I had with Erasmus00 concerning exactly this issue which you really should read. That is one of the problems with the structure of these forums. There is essentially no way to find a specific discussion even when you know exactly what was being said: the search function does not produce posts but only threads. There is no organization of the exchanges what so ever. I try to keep a database on where my posts are and what they are about but I have let it get out of date. It takes time to keep it up to date. If I knew the bash shell a little better, I could probably write a bash script to do it for me but I am too busy (or maybe too old) to get competent in bash.

At any rate, he and I have discussed the fact that my picture and Einstein's are isomorphic with regard to any specific observations. I managed to convince him of the truth of that statement but he still didn't see any value in it and dropped out of the discussion.

Originally Posted by modest

Taking as a postulate (simply because I have no idea how you derived these things) that some wave propagates at a fixed and finite speed for multiple inertial frames then I have no doubt the Lorentz transformations can and must be derived.

You should really look at the derivation of my fundamental equation as, without understanding the necessity of that result the whole thing seems to be a bit “off the wall”. My original web site no longer exists but that derivation has been put on WiKipedia. Sans the interaction term, that is nothing more than a standard four dimensional wave equation.

Originally Posted by modest

I understand and agree r = v_?t.

Then we see eye to eye insofar as that paragraph is concerned.

Originally Posted by modest

It almost feels like you've asserted the principle of relativity. It would help me to see how you rule out the possibility of where v_? would be constant relative to the center of the sphere but not relative to S'.

I would comment that, to anyone who understands relativity and why Maxwell's equations require these transformations (and you are certainly a member of that set), asserting that the fundamental equation is a wave equation with constant velocity is exactly equivalent to asserting the principal of relativity (or rather, the problem relativity was created to solve). That is why I suggest you closely follow my deduction of that fundamental equation; the issue of relativity is embedded in the equation itself.

The equation is invalid because because it requires the moving observer (the observer in the primed frame) to know his frame is moving. In my derivation of my fundamental equation, the equation is only valid in the rest frame of the universe. Since it is not talking about “correct” answers but rather about “expectations” the issue arises as to what happens if the two observers ignore the data which sets their frames of reference apart (for example, rotation of the earth, movement of the earth through the galaxy or possibly the microwave background radiation).

In that case, they would each presume their reference frame to be at rest with respect to the universe and clearly any physical phenomena which did not depend upon the validity of their frames being “true” rest frames of the universe would be erroneous (their expressions of the fundamental equations would be different). There is a contradiction here which can only be removed by taking advantage of the scale invariance of that equation.

Originally Posted by modest

But, your post seems to leave open the possibility of an infinite v_?. Is this not an issue?

No, it is not an issue for two explicit reasons. First, you need to understand the deduction of the fundamental equation. The constant K, which is essentially the inverse of v_?, is a free parameter of the deduction. Infinite v_? would essentially amount to the case K=0. That implies that the magnitude of the momentum of the individual entities making up the universe vanishes identically. The only conclusion which can be drawn from that is that “no change whatsoever can occur”; that demands an exactly static universe.

And, secondly, the fundamental equation is essentially scale invariant. Since t is a free evolution parameter, the actual change per unit time is set by two issues, the actual scale used for distance (which is defined by some specific solution to the equation) and the scale used for time (which is simply picked to describe some convenient repeating phenomena). That is, your explanation of the universe itself (as expressed by ) sets the explicit value of v_? (whatever it is, it is a finite constant set by your physics). So why don't we just call it “c” for convenience?

Have fun -- Dick