Einstein's Starting Point

Quote:There are only two particle manifestations of light, the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect. And both of those have wave interpretations. -|Tom|-
Can you explain the black body radiation, which introduced the Planck constant?
Can you explain the phenomenon that involves a photon disintegrating into a positron-electron pair?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />A "Time Domain" is a region of space that has a specific arrow of time such as our "Matter" universe, as opposed to an "Antimatter Universe" that may have a different arrow of time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are still presuming mathematical, not physical, concepts behind these words. In ordinary physics, "universe" means "everything that exists", so there cannot be more than one by definition. What is your definition?

And "time" is a measure of change. Because that means any kind of change, there cannot be more than one time. And it certainly cannot slow or reverse because that would require time to be a material, tangible thing instead of just a dimension (a concept). If a phenomenon reverses, the change that occurred with the original phenomenon and the change that occurred with its reversal are both measured by forward time. Time reversal would require that everything in the universe undo changes that have already happened -- the dead would resurrect, supernovas would unexplode, etc. That would certainly qualify as a miracle. So what definition of time are you using?

You then make some contrasts between Big Bang and Steady State universes, both of which are expanding universe models (contrary to modern data) and neither of which would be judged a viable cosmology in these parts. But even in the context of those theories, I could not make out what you were saying, probably because I could not imagine the definitions of basic concepts you were using. So again, I could not get very far into you message.

On this MB, we try to stick to deep reality physics, which means no magic or miracles. The concepts you seem to favor come from mathematical thinkers who freely invoke magic and miracles without acknowledging them as such. That kind of pseudo-physics has had its day and led to contradictions ("no deep reality"). It is time to return to the deep reality way, which is at least logical. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by guoliang liu</i>
<br />Can you explain the black body radiation, which introduced the Planck constant?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The essence of a wave is that it occurs in discrete quanta. It may be a valid generalization that, whenever a phenomenon appears to occur in discrete yet identical quanta, it is almost certainly a wave phenomenon. And as you know, Planck's great insight in avoiding the ultraviolet catastrophe was recognizing the quantum nature of light.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can you explain the phenomenon that involves a photon disintegrating into a positron-electron pair?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Can you explain an ordinary photometer in which photons are "converted" to electrons? We have mainly mathematical explanations for phenomena such as the one you ask about. Physical explanations (of which many are possible) require knowing something about the physical nature of matter/antimatter, charge and spin. We have made a good start on that in the MRB article "On the nature of substance in the Meta Model".

OTOH, if light were not a pure wave phenomenon, how would anyone explain that it has every known wave property? These are wavelength, frequency, intensity, amplitude, refraction, diffraction, coherence, interference, polarization, absence of mutual collisions, radiation pressure, transverse/longitudinal vibration, sameness of properties for each discrete wave, propagation speed unaffected by speed of source, wavefronts always perpendicular to direction of propagation, medium entities oscillate in place instead of propagating forward with the wave.

When propagating, light never behaves like a particle, but does exhibit all wave properties. Light also exhibits two particle properties when it interacts with matter, the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect. But because these also have possible wave interpretations (the wave strike can eject electrons), it seems more reasonable to conclude that light is a pure wave phenomenon than to conclude that it is some kind of mathematical “dual entity”, lacking a physical description. Light never exhibits properties unique to particles, such as the ability to collide with another of its own kind, the lack of need for a transmitting medium, and a ballistic speed that depends (initially) on the speed of its source. -|Tom|-

Hi Tom,

I am in agreement with you on the following points:

1) A phenomenon does not reverse.

2) Time reversals are impossible in forward time.

3) Time is the measurement of motion in a given space.

4) Time travel is impossible.

The following points may appear contradictory and create a paradox that needs to be resolved:

1) Time passes faster on earth then at speed of light, why?

2) Universe appears to be expanding at speed of light, why?

3) Antimatter is a subset waveform in forward time and appears to be found in jets that are formed on neo star development at 90 degrees to axis of rotation and at centers of galactic vortex. Why?

4) What is the source for extreme graviton flux?

5) Could an antimatter universe exist and not pose a contradiction to forward time?

6) We both agree that gravitons travel faster then light. This is a problem for existing physics as you well know because again there is a contradiction. You cannot have particles coming from our future and go backwards in time in reference to our time frame. So, just how do you resolve that paradox?

The reason I am at this MB is to ask questions that may lead to answers. So, I appreciate the dialogue.

John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />Time passes faster on earth then at speed of light, why?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is true only in special relativity. But SR has now been falsified in favor of Lorentzian relativity (LR), in which nothing affects the rate of time, but only the rate of certain types of clocks.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Universe appears to be expanding at speed of light, why?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is true only if the redshift is caused by the doppler effect. But all recent experiments, most notably the supernova data, have gone against the doppler interpretation of redshift. In MM, redshift is energy loss in elysium waves by friction in the graviton medium, much like ocean waves losing energy from atmospheric drag. The universe is not expanding.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Antimatter is a subset waveform in forward time and appears to be found in jets that are formed on neo star development at 90 degrees to axis of rotation and at centers of galactic vortex. Why?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We don't know much yet about the phenomena that cause antimatter fountains in our Galaxy. But we can be sure that no time reversal is involved.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What is the source for extreme graviton flux?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is not even a question in the Meta Model. In MM, it is shown from first principles that the universe must be infinite, not only in space and time but also in scale. So the graviton medium is simply the limited atmosphere of a "mega-planet", and its origin and eventual demise are essentially the same as that of any other atmosphere.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Could an antimatter universe exist and not pose a contradiction to forward time?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is only one universe, by definition.

Time reversal is a mathematical theory, much like black holes or the Big Bang. It is not a required feature of antimatter.

If any antimatter existed in significant quantities anywhere in the universe, the microwave radiation would produce gamma rays at its boundaries. But these are not seen. So there is very little antimatter in the universe.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We both agree that gravitons travel faster then light. This is a problem for existing physics as you well know because again there is a contradiction. You cannot have particles coming from our future and go backwards in time in reference to our time frame. So, just how do you resolve that paradox?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your statements are claims made by SR, which is now off the table. LR has no problem with anything traveling faster than light in forward time.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The reason I am at this MB is to ask questions that may lead to answers. So, I appreciate the dialogue.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Another suggestion: Read my book <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i> and/or subscribe to the Meta Research Bulletin and/or browse some of the articles on this web site. These provide an excellent frameword for understanding nature using only deep reality physics concepts. There is, of course, still much work to be done. But just knowing that the universe is infinite, eternal, and infinitely scaleable (and that there was therefore no creation event) is an enormous help to understanding everything else in the universe by eliminating many unproductive paths one might otherwise waste time exploring. -|Tom|-

John,

These things have been talked about many times here, in articles available via the tabs on the home page, in the Meta Research Bulletin, in TVF's book and in various threads in this forum.

Some have been discussed in this very thread in the last few days.

===

I'll summarize briefly:


[John] "1) Time passes faster on earth then at speed of light, why?"

Relative speed causes clocks to run slower, but has no impact on time.


[John] "2) Universe appears to be expanding at speed of light, why?"

This is a misinterpretation of the red shift of light from distant objects.


[John] "3) Antimatter is a subset waveform in forward time and appears to be found in jets that are formed on neo star development at 90 degrees to axis of rotation and at centers of galactic vortex. Why?"

If the jets seen comming from some distant objects were composed of antimatter we would be detecting radiation from their collisions with normal matter. We do not.


[John] "4) What is the source for extreme graviton flux?"

Hmmm. Not enough data. What do you mean by "extreme graviton flux"? The source of gravitons is an on-going subject of research and TVF is going to have a better handle on the latest poop than I do.


[John] "5) Could an antimatter universe exist and not pose a contradiction to forward time?"

Hmmm, another broken question. Since there can only be one universe (by definition of the word universe) this question is broken. Please rephrase. And you still have not shared your definition of "universe" with us.


[John] "6) We both agree that gravitons travel faster then light. This is a problem for existing physics as you well know because again there is a contradiction. You cannot have particles coming from our future and go backwards in time in reference to our time frame. So, just how do you resolve that paradox?"

Traveling faster than light does not result in time flowing backwards, nor in particles moving backward in time, except under the assumptions of certain theories. Those theories are associated with the mathe-magical "no deep reality" wing of science. We don't give them much chance of success here.


[John] "The reason I am at this MB is to ask questions that may lead to answers. So, I appreciate the dialogue."

That's fine. One reason this MB exists is to answer such questions. Sounds like we have a good match. HINT: Please try adjusting your follow up questions so that we can tell you are listening to the answers you get. And don't avoid doing some homework (by reading some of the stuff I mentioned in my opening paragraph).

Regards,
LB