QWC revisited 2011

I’ve been following the thread, Relativity and Simultaneity, at SciForums
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2762181#post2762181


The thread was originated by Motor Daddy. It was of particular interest to me because he introduces a new postulate in place of Einstein’s second postulate.

From Wiki on the postulates of Special Relativity:
1. First postulate (principle of relativity)
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.


MD introduced the concept of a moving light box to clarify his objection to the second postulate.
MDsgraphiccopiedfromthread.jpg


He assumes he is in an inertial frame of reference in which a flash of light is propagated at a point and time in absolute space without knowledge of the motion of that frame relative to the point in space and time where the propagation took place.

He assumes that the point of propagation of light occurs at a fixed point in space at a fixed time regardless of the frame of reference.

Is there actually a point in space where that light is propagated that would be agreed upon by observers in other frames? MD’s answer is yes, if the frames coincided at the instant the light was propagated, then someone moving relative to the rest frame that hosted the point of propagation would see the light propagated at the same point in space and time.

According to the SR postulate that light propagates at c in all frames, we would all agree that the speed of the light observed from all frames as it is emitted propagates at c in all frames. I used “in all frames” three times in the sentence on purpose. The first “in all frames” is part of the postulate. The second “in all frames” is that the light was physically observed to be emitted as an event in all frames that coincided at the point and time of propagation in space. The third “in all frames” was that the light propagated at c in each inertial frame regardless of the relative motion of that frame to the point of emission.

The problem quickly comes to light. If the observers are correct, i.e. that the light was propagated at the same point in space and time in all frames, and if the SR postulate is correct, i.e. that light travels at c in all inertial frames that are moving relative to each other, then in order for the postulate to be true the speed of light would have to be independent of the point of emission unless the point of emission would be considered moving with the motion of the frame of the observer.

In other words there can be no absolute point in space and time according to the postulates of SR. Any point in space that coincides with multiple moving frames at the instant of an event is assumed to be moving with the frames and not fixed at a point in absolute space and time. All frames moving relative to the point in space and time of the event will effectively take their space and time with them as they move away from the coincident point in space.

MD’s Box lays out an alternative postulate. Light propagates at c from the absolute point in space where it is propagated.

His position is that if the light ray (see below *) that is emitted from that absolute point in space is observed from a frame of reference in motion relative to the fixed point of emission in space and time, the speed of the light would be measured at c + or – the difference in the rate of motion between the observing frame and the absolute point in space and time where the emission occurred.

(* or light sphere which is an in-phase composite of rays across a spherical light wave front expanding in space at c in all directions)

This means that MD’s Box is not in line with the terminology of Special Relativity. There is no absolute space or time in SR and there is in MD’s Box scenario.

However, MD says or at least implies that the fixed point in space and time is not an inertial frame; it is a point in absolute space and in absolute time that coincided with an inertial frame at the point in space and time of the light flash.

I come forward to agree that a light ray or expanding sphere of light has a physical presence in space and expands at c from the fixed point of emission in absolute space and time. We have agreed that the light sphere always expands at c relative to the fixed point in space and time, and therefore that point in space and time does not move in empty space or along the time continuum regardless of the motion of the frames that coincided with that point in space at the time of the emission.

My interest in MD’s Relativity of Simultaneity stems from my QWC speculations. 1) In QWC there is an arena process where arenas that emerge from Big Bangs have a fixed point in space from which their arena expansion occurs. Multiple arenas represent multiple fixed points in absolute space and absolute time. 2) Also, in QWC there is a process of quantum action that establishes the physical presence of particles of matter. Quantum action is characterized by high density spots that are fixed in absolute space and time, and the standing wave concept of particles advocated by QWC is completely compatible with the concept of absolute space and time. 3) In QWC gravity is caused by an imbalance between inflowing and out flowing wave energy associated with quantum action that establishes the presence of mass. The notion of absolute points of emission of out flowing gravity waves is completely compatible with the concept of absolute space and time.
 
Last edited:
Over in the Physics and Math forum I have been participating in the thread, “Relativity of Simultaneity” thread. There were so many trolls that even a reasonable member like me :) was labeled a troll, crank and crackpot when I tried to discuss the premise of the thread instead to criticizing the originator like almost everyone else was doing. I have always been on the side of the underdog unless the underdog was really just a mad dog and in that case the originator was defending an interesting postulate which I mentioned in my recent post.

I wanted to make the point that the trolls were, generally speaking, abandoning what I think is one of the real strengths of science and that is tentativeness which I mentioned earlier in this thread at the level of an axiom.

I entertained myself by defining a new cult based on that important precept.

The Cult of Tentativeness

I declare the existence of a cult consisting of science professionals and laymen alike who adhere to the precept of tentativeness of science. In that cult are those who do not consider “non-falsification” of widely held consensus theories to be proof of those theories. That is a double negative but I think you can get the drift; non-falsification is not the same as proof of a theory. If you can agree with that you may be a cult member in the Cult of Tentativeness.

The science of Special Relativity, the topic of the thread in the Physics and Math forum, is one example but the cult applies to any widely held theory. You have to declare yourself a non-cult member in order to be excluded from the cult. You can do that in several ways. You can deny being a cult member or simply insist that non-falsification of SR (insert any consensus theory) is proof of SR (any consensus theory). That releases you from the cult and gives you non-cult status meaning you don’t accept the tentativeness of said Theory.

You can also declare yourself a non-cult member by proclaiming that only cranks and crackpots say the particular theory ________ (insert any consensus theory) is theory and not fact. That releases you from the cult.

Also, you can exclude yourself from the cult by flaming declared cult members for not accepting non-cult member status through denial of the precept of tentativeness or through acceptance of non-falsification of ________ (insert any particular consensus theory) as proof that said theory is reality.

Strangely enough that puts some reputable science professionals in the same group as professed cult members in the eyes of declared non-cult members because some science professionals acknowledge that one of the strengths of science is tentativeness, i.e. all science is subject to change and new facts are always possible that can lead to falsification of a previously held consensus. Science professionals who hold to tentativeness are undeclared cult members and do not have non-cult status until they declare non-cult status.

Many cult members, declared or undeclared, believe that all consensus theory is derived from the postulates, is mathematically sound based on the postulates, and has not been falsified, but that it is not yet truth because of the precept of tentativeness in science (or because they believe that the postulates themselves do not precisely correspond with reality).

I am a cult member because I believe in the tentativeness of science.

Man up and declare your status.

---------

For the record no one manned up over there on the, "Relativity of Simultaneity" thread, lol. It seems that tentativeness is an inconvenience when it interferes with trolling opportunities.
 
Last edited:
You sure write a lot of words but you don't really say much.;)
 
I like the Cult of Tentativeness idea because as I define it, it recognizes known science and theory, it acknowledges that known theory has limits and incompatibilities, and it allows speculation done responsibly that goes beyond those limits and addresses the incompatibilities. Valid speculation must have an acceptable connection back to science done according to the scientific method. “An acceptable connection” means that all speculation must fall under the rules of reasonable and responsible speculation.

Reasonable and responsible speculation means starting with existing science, identifying axioms to address the unknowns and imponderables of infinity, and deriving the step by step, bottom up speculations from those axioms, without violating known observations and data.

Don’t get me wrong, my speculations depart from science and the scientific method and as such are not science and I don’t defend them as science or reality, but I now defend them as reasonable and responsible speculations allowed under the umbrella of the Cult of Tentativeness as I define the cult. It is easy to see that QWC, done under those guidelines, is not going to be of much interest to anyone unless they just like to contemplate ideas that are presented in a fashion that claims to be consistent with the above methods.

Since by definition QWC is of interest primarily to myself I’m changing my policy of open input from all members and am now invoking the requirement that only contributions from members of The Cult of Tentativeness will be considered for incorporation into QWC :D :p.

This will have no immediate impact on QWC because there is no input coming in, but I have been cavorting around in other SciForums forums and threads and might begin to attract some non-cult members and otherwise undesirable characters, and I just want to say, why bother with them unless they are cult members.
 
I didn't mean to interupt your discussion with your self. I noticed that 12 out of the last 14 post have been just you rambling. Why don't you start a blog instead of droning on and on here. If you title the blog anti-science or something maybe someone equally as confused as you will actually read what you write!

I don't mean to be blunt or inconsiderate - oops, I guess I do.
 
origin said:
I didn't mean to interupt your discussion with your self. I noticed that 12 out of the last 14 post have been just you rambling. Why don't you start a blog instead of droning on and on here. If you title the blog anti-science or something maybe someone equally as confused as you will actually read what you write!

I don't mean to be blunt or inconsiderate - oops, I guess I do.
Click to expand...
Lol, there isn't anything you can say that will be new. Flaming and trolling as been around since the introduction of the Internet. I was actually the first person to install the MindSpring ISP software from the CD. They emailed me and said I was their Neil Armstrong. That must have been back in the early 1990's in Atlanta. Before that I had Prodigy from the 80's. I've probably been around science forums longer than you have been out of diapers and I know you better than you know yourself :D.

But you're not a cult member and so you are welcome to troll and flame all you want but rest assured, I probably know more science right now than you ever will and I don't care if what I rant on about makes me a pea brain in your estimation. Just think how you look to me.

But actually, thanks for being a customer. May I call you a pea brain?
 
Last edited:
Non-cult members have not come to grips with the possibility that the Big Bang might have been caused by physics that is non-Lorentz compatible, or the possibility that particles have internal wave energy composition that is not Lorentz compatible, and therefore the presence of matter, gravity and big bangs is not Lorentz dependent. The cause of big bangs and the cause of the presence of particles may be the source of Lorentz invariance in realms like our expanding arena. Lorentz invariance may be entirely pervasive in the realms between particle wave composition and big bang events, i.e. the observable ranges within QWC arenas, but because they have not come to grips with realms outside our ability to observe they are too smart to be fooled by the ploy of tentativeness.
 
I have re-written my 100 word description of the Philosophy of Quantum Wave Cosmology:

The natural universe is infinite and eternal, composed of wave energy which, through synchronization, establishes the presence of mass and gravity sustained by opposing forces of expansion and collapse, perpetually refreshing energy’s usefulness across the landscape of the greater universe where expanding arenas disburse and merge and within which life is generated and evolves, forever assuring the presence of intelligent contemplative individuals who conclude that God and the universe are one in the same and who find that humility, self respect, charity, and faith in nature are the cornerstones of life in which meaning and purpose are found from within.
 
Last edited:
quantum_wave said:
I have re-written my 100 word description of the Philosophy of Quantum Wave Cosmology:

The natural universe is infinite and eternal, composed of wave energy which, through synchronization, establishes the presence of mass and gravity sustained by opposing forces of expansion and collapse, perpetually refreshing energy’s usefulness across the landscape of the greater universe where expanding arenas disburse and merge and within which life is generated and evolves, perpetually assuring the presence of intelligent contemplative individuals who conclude that God and the universe are one in the same and who find that humility, self respect, charity, and faith in nature are the cornerstones of life in which meaning and purpose are found from within.
Click to expand...

I like it. ;)
 
Motor Daddy said:
I like it. ;)
Click to expand...
Thanks, MD; you are an honorary member of the Cult of Tentativeness. Though all science is tentative, the universe itself, with all its arenas, hospitable environments, and free willed life forms that come and go, is as it should be and could be no other way.
 
origin said:
Well tough luck! That means what ever it is you said is baseless, and firmly rooted in fantasy.;)
Click to expand...

Can you determine the difference between happiness in fantasy and happiness in reality? Are you implying that happiness in reality is more real or better than happiness in fantasy? If so, provide proof of your assertion.

For if I lived a life of total happiness in fantasy, and you lived a miserable life in reality, who would have lived a better life?

You have much to learn, grasshopper.

BTW, I am not saying my physics are fantasy, so don't even try it. I am saying you have much to learn about the universe and life.
 
origin said:
Well tough luck! That means what ever it is you said is baseless, and firmly rooted in fantasy.;)
Click to expand...
Yeah, whatever. It's hard to keep trolls like MD from posting. But strangely enough he seems to be a thinker; unlike those who don't understand that their own delusions are just boring repeats cloned into their sheep-like psyches.

You'll some day question things like what causes matter, gravity and Big Bangs and until then you'll flame those who have long since passed your meager efforts at contemplation. We long ago realized that new thinking is the key to breaking down the barriers of theoretical incompatibility that block a wider understanding of nature.

Let me know when I can call you a pea brain. That will be when you man up and realize you are the deluded one.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Can you determine the difference between happiness in fantasy and happiness in reality? Are you implying that happiness in reality is more real or better than happiness in fantasy? If so, provide proof of your assertion.

For if I lived a life of total happiness in fantasy, and you lived a miserable life in reality, who would have lived a better life?

You have much to learn, grasshopper.

BTW, I am not saying my physics are fantasy, so don't even try it. I am saying you have much to learn about the universe and life.
Click to expand...
I understand exactly what you are saying. He will learn with time and will conveniently forget these days of being ignorant.
 
MD you are smart enough to know that you are wrong but you are so arrogant that you can't admit it and would rather live a lie.

QW you don't appear to have the 'where with all' to even realize MD is wrong.

It is rather tough to decide which of you is more pathetic.:(
 
origin said:
MD you are smart enough to know that you are wrong but you are so arrogant that you can't admit it and would rather live a lie.

QW you don't appear to have the 'where with all' to even realize MD is wrong.

It is rather tough to decide which of you is more pathetic.:(
Click to expand...
Between the two of us it would be me. But we don't exclude you, and between the three of us it would be you because it isn't about what you think of us, it is about what you don't think.
 
Last edited:
The common ground post:

If, with no known cause, the Big Bang, the presence of mass, and the presence of gravity have not been defined algorithmically, and if anything that seems to be non-algorithmic has natural causes that we just don’t yet understand, then we can say that the Big Bang, the presence of mass, and the presence of gravity have natural causes which places the supernatural into a context of being part of as yet undefined nature and that nature is algorithmic, i.e. repeatable and dependable.

I personally characterize unexplained observations and data like the presence of mass, gravity and our Big Bang as acknowledgements from the boundary between science and the unknown but maintain that the unknown has natural algorithmic causes. An acknowledgement is something that we can observe and can take as confirmation of an algorithmic aspect of nature without understanding the algorithm, i.e. an unexplained observation or event. The philosophy then is that those acknowledgements from the unknown are simply part of the algorithmic repeatable and dependable natural and eternal universe.

That is the QWC common ground with religion, i.e. we can view God and nature as one in the same. Anything that we acknowledge as an act of God like answered prayers, miracles, or the Big Bang, have natural causes that we don’t yet understand, but that we believe are repeatable and dependable. That is faith in nature.

We long ago realized that new thinking is the key to breaking down the barriers of theoretical incompatibility that block a wider understanding of nature. This applies to the incompatibility within science and the incompatibility between science and religion.

Though all science is tentative, the QWC universe itself, with all its arenas, hospitable environments, and free willed life forms that come and go across its infinite and eternal landscape, is as it should be and could be no other way because anything defined by natural laws that have always existed never had an opportunity to be governed by different laws. Again QWC and religion can find common ground in infinity and eternity.

Those concepts, combined with the QWC axioms and their derived “truths” make up the cosmology and the philosophy of QWC. I happily proceed with my own particular type of delusion as I sometimes say to appease the non-cult members.

******** End of Common Ground post ********
 
From Cosmology to Philosophy and Back

After going through the process here at SciForums of revisiting QWC, presenting the axioms and derived speculations, rewriting the philosophy of QWC, and presenting the “Common Ground” post, I now bounce off of the self-imposed limit to word density and expand the 100 word philosophy into a new list of 21 axioms and major derived “truths” that correspond to the cosmology of QWC:

The universe is infinite and eternal
Energy is all there is and cannot be created or destroyed
Anything that appears non-algorithmic has natural causes that are algorithmic
The two major forces are expansion and collapse
Both major forces are expressed as wave energy
Matter is caused by synchronized inflowing and out flowing wave energy
Synchronized wave energy forms particles that contain energy
Out flowing wave energy is spherical and equal in all directions
Gravity is caused by a net directional imbalance in inflowing wave energy
Relative momentum causes a net directional imbalance in inflowing wave energy
Expansion momentum is imparted to matter as it forms in an expanding energy arena
Expanding arenas intersect and overlap across the landscape of the greater universe
Gravitational collapse of matter in arena overlaps reaches maximum energy density limits
Collapse bounces into expansion at the point of maximum energy density
Matter is negated by gravitational collapse and reforms during arena expansion
Our extended Hubble volume arena is an expanding environment where matter reformed
Life is generative and evolves to intelligent free willed life forms in expanding arenas
Intelligent life contemplates the nature of universe
An intelligent conclusion is that God and the universe are one in the same
An infinite and eternal universe is as it should be and could be no other way
Science is our tentative knowledge of the nature of the universe

… To be continued …
 
These are the 21 numbered axioms and derived speculations for future reference.

1. The universe is infinite and eternal
2. Energy is all there is and cannot be created or destroyed
3. Anything that appears non-algorithmic has natural causes that are algorithmic
4. The two major forces are expansion and collapse
5. Both major forces are expressed as wave energy
6. Matter is caused by synchronized inflowing and out flowing wave energy
7. Synchronized wave energy forms particles that contain energy
8. Out flowing wave energy is spherical and equal in all directions
9. Gravity is caused by a net directional imbalance in inflowing wave energy
10. Relative momentum causes a net directional imbalance in inflowing wave energy
11. Expansion momentum is imparted to matter as it forms in an expanding energy arena
12. Expanding arenas intersect and overlap across the landscape of the greater universe
13. Gravitational collapse of matter in arena overlaps reaches maximum energy density limits
14. Collapse bounces into expansion at the point of maximum energy density
15. Matter is negated by gravitational collapse and reforms during arena expansion
16. Our extended Hubble volume arena is an expanding environment where matter reformed
17. Life is generative and evolves to intelligent free willed life forms in expanding arenas
18. Intelligent life contemplates the nature of universe
19. An intelligent conclusion is that God and the universe are one in the same
20. An infinite and eternal universe is as it should be and could be no other way
21. Science is our tentative knowledge of the nature of the universe



Numbers 12, 13, 14, and 15 imply the formation of big crunches, the collapse of those crunches that forces matter and energy to the maximum possible energy density, and off of that maximum density there is a bounce which reverses the collapse into expansion. The expansion occurs after the existing matter in the crunch is negated to the wave energy that was contained in the particles of matter. It is the wave energy released from the containment of matter that provides the energy for the bounce. This type of QWC event refreshes the usefulness of the energy in the matter that entered the crunch and thus the energy is conserved and entropy is defeated.

Our Big Bang was such an event, and the landscape of the greater universe is composed of such events. That infinite and eternal landscape is characterized by arenas forming after bounces and then overlapping and crunching and bouncing. Each new arena contains energy contributed by multiple previous arenas whose galaxies and EM were captured in the overlap space.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top