• [deleted]

Sir Lawrence Crowell,

Thank you kindly for your reply.

The matter of units is a topic I worked on briefly, as this is the second time it has been offered. It appears that the application of units is one of the first things that physicists use to assess whether an equation has flaws. I never quite resolved the units issue as it was easier to dismiss. I dismissed it it, as follows: As an anology, if I am thinking correctly (remember math is not my expertise, even simple as this is) prior to E=mc2 (J=g m/s m/s), I don't believe that grams (mass) could have been taken into unit agreement with Joules (energy). Is there unit agreement in E=mc2? Was there before the equation?

Also, as for example if apples were always known as apples and pears as pears, and oranges as oranges, and were they known units, and then some theory comes along and shows that there is an equivalency between them such that, in terms of units apples could be understood as oranges divided by pears, then so the new thinking (with much resistence of course) would be that apples is oranges divided by pears. I offer that there is a Spatial equivalency (cubic meters)to Mass (grams), and so, prior unit agreement or not, we must now accept the new conversion.

I thank you for binging these comments forward. It allows me to focus on my rationale for my theory, and it is exactly what I need. Now I know that there are so many questions I will not be able to answer because the physics is beyond me, and my math is pathetic. Conceptually though, and rationally, I believe I can fully defend my theory and that it will hold up to the rigor of

experimentation as well.

I was very tempted to simply say "no caramel apples for you"!

Thank you again Sir Crowell.

doug

    • [deleted]

    Paul,

    Thank you. First, I have to put forward my definition of "Space". I can live with the Wiki partial definition as follows: "Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction", however I believe it may have bounds beyond which even it does not exists, nor anything, but this is another topic altogether.

    Therefore, when I see an enclosed system, such as a cold balloon, with a defined region (internal volume) of space, and when that balloon is heated, I see a new internal volume greater than that which existed before I started heating the balloon. I am told by physicists that the molecules are moving faster, farther away from one another, and bouncing off the walls of the balloon thereby expanding the volume (at the expense of density of course). My problem with this, is that when maintaining the definition of Space I started with, I need an explanation. I cannot fathom where the new "Space" came from without introducing a reason. I continue to respect the defintions I have used when entering into the "experiment". Where did the new space come from?

    To keep it short, I have new "spatial volumes", do I not? The balloon is larger, yes? And it is an enclosed entity , yes. It is our experiment. The only thing that happened is that the particles are now moving more rapidly. I associate this movement to the "creation" of this new "space". In maintaining the Conservation of Energy Laws, something must be lost for the new "Space" to arrive. This I attribute to a loss of matter and in a similar fashion that mass is lost when energy is created in the E=mc2 equation.

    It is also my explanation of where the space comes from, for there to be expansion in the Universe. It all happens on a local level (micro) and this explains Red Shift anomalies as well. It is very important to recognize that the macro world must always be built up from the micro. This element is consistent with CIG.

    To explain the Double Slit, which you are probably all too familar with, try approaching the experiment from the view of CIG, and you should have no problem understanding the outcome(s). Light is a "particle" when stopped and in its black hole like personality (i.e. at the point of emission, and at the point where it again is absorbed by the screen), However, when traveling, it's mass becomes spatial and part of it goes through each slit, thereby offering the opportunity for constructive and destructive interferrence. [There should be a point where if the slits are spaced far enough apart, that the spatial manifestation, since it is limited by the mass to space conversion limitations/potential (see CUPI quantification), will be unable to go through both slits and interfrrence will not be possible, since only a limited amount of spatial volume was created and it was not large enough to span distant slits.].

    CIG theory is contingent upon the postulate that "the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference". It takes the Lorentz "contraction along the "x" axis" and gives it a new physical interpretation.

    As for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, they are simply the same observations but viewed from different perspectives of % of "c" travel. The halos surrounding massive bodies are examples where due to gravitational effects, these effects limit the "c" rate sufficiently such that a different "Spatial" quantity with a different "mass component" unfold. The space unfolds in the same proportions as length contraction along the x-axis based on how fast a massive particle travels. Can someone look at the dark energy/dark matter data to confirm this correlation? When light can't move at all (black hole), no space manifests and mass alone exists in a singularity. [there are other considerations here such as there must be a certain volume of space for mass to exist; conversely, for the vacuum energy, there must be a mass component - singularities appear unstable - but we will not get into that here]

    If you could explain the balloon problem to me, and convince me that there is no actual new space inside the balloon, then I can rethink things. Right now I am very confused. I have been walking around with the recognition (belief) that I (physically) have a certain equivalency to space and time. It is an uneasy feeling. [The theory also combines the spacetime continuum with the mass-energy equation].

    I will elaborate more on your email later as I agree with much of it.

    From CIG Theory (www.cigtheory.com)

    "Where there is a different time there must be a different

    place. Where there is a different place, there is a different

    space. Where there are different spaces, there are different

    volumes. CIG theory explains the creation of new volumes of

    space created as the result of different times imparted onto

    the world universe and as a direct result of the relativistic

    nature of nature."

    Lots more work to do, and lots of refinement needed to assess what is actually happenng in nature -- need help

    Paul - please keep trying to understand the theory (perhaps you already do?) By all means attack it, since if CIG does not hold up to the rigors of scrutiny, it deserves to crumb cake.

    thx

    doug

      Lawrence, Petcho.

      Do you agree that in the above you're both correct? Please offer any falsification you may perceive, but remember, scientific advances are NEVER familiar at first sight.

      Pentcho, - Interestingly this is somewhat equivalent to Einstaedt's Mitchell-Arago etc. basis, but without conserved photons due to absorption and re-emission on scattering, which solves the rest of the problems they were not able to address (the reason the model faded away I believe).

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      Einsteiniana's priests readily criticize the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate in favor of the reasonable implications of the Newtonian alternative, the equation c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Still they would never replace the false postulate with the Newtonian alternative. Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) is false but it has been a money-spinner for more than a century. The Newtonian equation c'=c+v is true but, if adopted, would take science back to the end of the 18th century and Einsteiniana's priests do not wish to go there:

      http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148

      "Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

      http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf

      John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us. How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time."

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion

      Craig Callender: "Einstein mounted the next assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity. According to his special theory of relativity, what events are happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared, "are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity..."

      Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

      • [deleted]

      I am surprised there are people here who do not believe in specials relativity and E=mc^2. World War 2 ended after we built the atomic bomb and dropped it on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The whole idea of the atomic bomb was to convert a mass m of Plutonium into energy based on the conversion rate E=mc^2.

      Do people who don't believe in special relativity also not believe in atomic bombs? Do they not remember the Cold War? The Cuban missile crisis? Atomic testing?

        Hi Jason,

        LOL! This is basically a wide open forum so what did you expect? The anti-relativity people will be stuck to it like glue. Best to just ignore them.

        Fred

        • [deleted]

        Jason, Fred,

        You are the most intelligent Einsteinians I have ever known so please tell me if the following argument is valid:

        If the speed of light depended on the speed of the light source, no atomic bomb would have been built.

        Atomic bombs *were* built.

        Therefore the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

        Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        • [deleted]

        Pentcho

        Not sure why I am repeating this, except that on the last attempt Lawrence mentioned Joy and the thread was drowned out.

        Einstein's 1905 light postulate 1) is correct 2) does not lead to the conclusions you assert.

        1 His postulate was that: 1) That the speed of light is independent of that which the photons interacted with. Which is correct because light (as in an effect in photons) results from an atomic reaction, not a 'collision'. Hence, same form of reaction results in same starting speed on every occasion. The speeds of he interacting entities before the reaction are irrelevant. 2) That original speed will be maintained unless impinged upon. Which is again correct and applies to anything.

        2 Light is just a physically existent entity. It has no impact on how other entities behave. With the evolution of sensory detection it has acquired the role of a representation of that behaviour, ie organisms can 'see' it. Another important point is that each existent state of any given 'entity' is represented by different light. The driving force behind Relativity is dimension alteration. Now, it is irrelevant to that fact, but one can argue with how this assertion was derived (which involved a presumption about light and a certain experiment) and whether it is actually correct, irrespective of the derivation. The theory was about the electrodynamics of moving bodies (the clue is in the title), it is not about light or the observation thereof. This has become the subsequent interpretation based fundamentally on a confusion as to what time is, as opposed to timing, and it becoming the surrogate variable for dimension alteration.

        Paul

        • [deleted]

        Douglas

        Although irrelevant to the point I was making, forget 3 dimensions. That is just a human conceptualisation of direction. In physical reality what exists is a definite number of possible directions from any given spatial position (ie all adjacent spatial positions which could be occupied if 'something' moves from its current position).

        Space is the corollary of 'thing'. The same spatial positions deemed to be extrinsic space when considering one thing, can be intrinsic when considering another. In your balloon analogy, the "new space" is not new, because it did not "come from anywhere". The balloon (thing) altered dimension, ie the balloon got nearer to adjacent things-it occupied spatial positions which were previously, given the definition of the things involved, unoccupied. You are conceiving of space as if it is an entity in its own right, when all that physically exists are 'things'.

        Now, expansion of the entirety of reality, as known to us, is a different matter. By definition, this is not detectable, except on an historical basis. Because it is an effect which is omnipresent, so there is no comparison possible to identify difference. In that sense then, whether this is occurring or not is irrelevant.

        Forget about the "speed of light" and "inertial frames of reference". Whether the derivation was correct, or indeed the original observation was so, and irrespective of whether it actually happens or not, Lorentz postulated a physical alteration in dimension, in the line of travel. This, although on each occasion he put forward some simple explanation he also expressed reservations, was never rescinded and is the real variable in Relativity. The point being that for a law to be valid it must be possible to choose anything as the reference from which then to consider it. Note that any judgement inherently involves a reference. But, not only must one then continue to use that reference, but any change which occurs to it, or the other things being referenced, must be factored into the calculations. And they 'discovered' that matter alters dimension when differential force is applied, which also causes changing momentum. That is, the latter is an alternative indicator to the fact that dimension alteration is occurring.

        An example. 2 buses. The momentum of one of them is altering. According to the theory, that indicates it is being subjected to a differential force (ie it is no longer in equilibrium/at rest) which causes an alteration in dimension. [Incidentally, there is a tendency to only talk of contraction/acceleration, but the concept was of a state of equilibrium size, ie that which it reverted to-which must involve 'expansion'-once forces regained a 'balance']. If this alteration in dimension is not taken into account, then space and timing will be incorrectly calculated. Because the 'squashed' bus would be considered as per the normal state one. But a squashed bus has further to travel as space (ie that which is 'not bus') to (say) the bus stop has increased, and it will take a longer timing, than would otherwise have been expected, to travel. That's it. No strange effects with 'time', or different observers, or light.

        On Dark Matter/Energy, do not forget that light is just a physical phenomenon that organisms utilise in their sensory detection systems. There can be no presumption that it is capable of 'detecting' everything.

        Paul

        • [deleted]

        Paul,

        Space is emergent, and manifests itself from traveling massive particles. Look inside the balloon, not outside. There is more going on than a simple re-positioning of the balloon in a non-changing spatial environment. Space has been created. It happens everywhere all the time.

        It happens all the time with new Bohr orbitals via the discrete planck quantum jumps. The jumps create new Space. This new view, if correct, brings determinism back into the picture. It what may also be happening with Virtual Particles about which I know little.

        Your notation: "You are conceiving of space as if it is an entity in its own right, when all that physically exists are 'things'." Space is an entity in its own right, but since it is another form of matter, everything now gets slightly blurred into a single "indistinguishable reality". In CIG, more fundamentals have been combined.

        Where Einstein stopped with matter warping the spacetime continuum, CIG theory takes the next logical step and offers that it is the spacetime continuum itself that actually turns into matter.

        Matter has often been described as that which "Occupies space and has mass": The inherent contradiction of this definition is all too apparent unless each is a manifestation of the other. Matter could occupy matter and have no further relationship to space. But as soon as Matter occupies Space, it is by default a manifestation of Space. CIG expands and explains how this happens.

        My theory explains how space emerges. I've applied it to solve the Horizon Problem, and Red Shift anomolies, as well as using it to remove the confusion surrounding the Double Slit.

        Now, the only problem is, one must convince oneself that it is correct.

        Much more than that, it would be nice if the "community" subjects it to rigorous evaluation. There is enough in the theory to allow itself to be subjected to real tests (mostly through data confirmation). I'm not giving you 30 dimensions in a box containing a dead cat here.

        Wait a second, I think I heard a purrrr

        Thanks,

        doug

          • [deleted]

          E=mc² was not sufficient because only the linear velocity of the spheres is considered. the spinal rotation and the orbital rotation must be inserted for a real quantization of the mass.

          c o s is more logic and of course with the cubic for a real maximum universal entropy in increasing furthermore.

          Here is so the improved equation E=m(c³o³s³) and also mcosV constant for all physical spheres, quantical or cosmological. You can also correlate with the universal 3D sphere and its central sphere. The serie of uniqueness appears for all spheres !

          ps eureka :) SPHERIZATION THEORY !

          • [deleted]

          The real question to ask here is what can light, and specifically its speed, have to do with the attributes of other, different forms of matter???

          Perhaps the clue as to why this is thought to be so lies in the fact that we see with light?

          Paul

          • [deleted]

          Pentcho

          This particular example was a shambles. But a flawed explanation does not invalidate whatever the underlying hypotheses are.

          In essence: the man and ray of light are not interchangeable in the way Einstein proposes.

          In more detail: The key is in the definition of the reference point: "see from the above". Assuming that the 'observation point' is of the earth. And assuming the other conditions as stated. Then, the velocity of this ray of light will be c from the perspective of the embankment, and c-v from the perspective of the carriage. And the velocity of light is c. The observation point, embankment and carriage are of the earth (the carriage just moving an additional v in the same direction as the light). The ray of light is not of the earth. So, if something independent of the closed system 'earth' (which comprises, earth, carriage, observation point), is observed from within that system, then its velocity will be just be the difference, and vice-versa. It is of no consequence which reference point is used, other than that the carriage is moving v faster, within the 'earth' system, in the same direction as the light. So carriage vis a vis light is less than c. Einstein stipulated what the light was doing, ie, it is travelling at c, a finite and constant speed. He even said the air "had been removed".

          Paul

          • [deleted]

          Douglas

          Leaving aside the possibility that the entirety of reality is expanding, space is neither emergent or created. It is the corollary of entity. And here one also has to be clear, in ontological terms, about the concept: entity. There is only one physically existent state at a time. Each time it is different. However, we keep referring to different existent states as 'it', because superficially certain features are retained which are deemed to constitute that particular 'it'. That is, we are attributing a level of persistence to reality which does not actually occur.

          Anyway(!), space is just the reverse of object. There are only objects which occupy spatial position. In that sense one could say that that which is being designated as space in any given instance, is another object from the ones being used as a reference for the definition. For example: the space which is the consequence of identifying two molecules, is part of the ball which is formed from these, and other, molecules. If the reference is ball to another object, ie the extrinsic space, then the former is not space but ball. Etc, etc, etc. The extent to which all possible spatial positions are occupied by 'something' at any given point in time, is another matter.

          As I hinted before, with the definition of time, spacetime is a flawed model of reality. There is no 'time', or more accurately, change, in reality. It can only exist in one state at a time. The subsequent one is different, and so on. Comparison reveals change which involves substance (ie what altered) and frequency (ie the rate at which it did so).

          That cat knew what happened, as indeed did the fleas, etc, on its body. Their rights were denied. Or put another way round, the underlying philosophy there as to how reality occurs is incorrect.

          Paul

          • [deleted]

          Hi Doug,

          Will you be entering the essay contest?

          Doug

          I just have one problem with CIG theory. The caramel dipped apple never turned up when I put my hand up.

          I checked out your postulates by carefully observing a big star compared to a small one with my telescope, sure enough the mass built up more quickly around the big one the moment they exited the stage door. Now that is predictive power. I was very impressed.

          But you know the laws of physics as well as I do; no toffee apples, no choccies!

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          Hi,

          Lawrence, I recognize your pragamatism. You know I don't understand why a lot of people see the relativity like an irrational tool. It is bizare. Perhaps that c implies many probelms due to special relativity. Perhaps that their error is to focus on bosons instead of fermions.If these fermions turn in the other sense , so perhaps that for them the special relativity is not a parameter of limitation. Now of course it is just a hypothesis and of course our technology does not permit to see that. That said , perhaps that it coulod be interesting to see more in this domain. The fermions if they turn differently can perhaps aswer to our doubts.

          The bosons cannot pass c,because we must see this 3D, without c, we cannot see the universe. But a boson after all can be accelerated and even can pass c , why not after all.

          • [deleted]

          Paul,

          the light is the light, and all is composed by the light.The mass , it is the light, the light , it is the mass.....now see the evolution since the hypothetical BB..........the mass polarises the light !

          SPHERE ...DIVISON LIKE AN UNIVERSAL MEIOSIS......ultim fractal serie of uniqueness. BIG BANG ......quantum spheres .............cosmological spheres.........UNIVERSAL SPHERE AND ITS CENTRAL SPHERE.

          The light , it is the mass and the mass, it is the light, and the mass and the light are the Entropy when the general point of vue is analyzed with the biggest rationality.

          E=mc² WAS NOT SUFFICIENT ! E=m(c³o³s³) is more universally logic ! the 3 motions of a sphere must be considered. If the light have the maximums for c o s. So we have an interesting link for the mass considering the finite serie of uniqueness with the main central sphere.The diffrent sense of rotation and the decreasing of velocities more the synchronizations of volumes between hv and m becoùme an universal key of quantization of mass and its EVOLUTION SPHERIZATION.

          Regards

          • [deleted]

          Hi Georgina,

          I was thinking of entering the essay. I'm not too good on protocol, but might give it a try. The topic sounds great! Love to think. (no math)

          I hope you win.

          THX

          doug

          • [deleted]

          Variable speed of light or variable wavelength? Variable speed of light of course:

          http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

          "vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

          http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf

          "La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

          http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf

          Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."

          http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf

          Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

          http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf

          Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

          http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

          Albert Einstein Institute: "As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses [that is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c]."

          Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com