Questioning the Foundations: Space-Time Transformations vs. Motion Transformations by Rafael Emmanuel Castel

After reading some of the comments elsewhere, I am inclined to give the following comments here.

There is beauty in the mathematical representations. What we lack is the definitive approach in the interpretation that fits reality.

The maths describe the transformations in nature - this is physics. Therefore, the underlying idea in the word "transformation" (especially, what is transformed) should be clarified in order to have the clear interpretation of the maths in physics.

The fundamental idea in classical physics is the velocity (or motion) transformations. The fundamental idea in Einsteinian physics is the arbitrary space-time transformations with the implication that space and time can be effected with the motions that bring about the transformations.

Since it promotes the arbitrary view, of either the transformations of space or of time and of the relativity of motion, the modern interpretive approach upholds no specific interpretation that uniquely fits reality; the stipulation of arbitrariness fits anything as reality. Thus, the unfaithfulness is promoted by the stipulation for the arbitrariness and the relativity.

Significantly in accord with the classical physics, the argument in my paper is that the math representations describe motion transformations -- i.e., simply the motions of the motions themselves; as I have forwarded in the previous essay contest, both the discrete and the continuous are constructs of motion (kinetic constructs). The sole function of space is that it gets occupied by the substance that gets defined by the motion. No arbitrary transformations of space and of time! Only the transformations of motions in the substance of existence! I think this view uniquely fits reality.

If we thoroughly examine the "tensors" and "vectors", "dimensions" and "manifolds", "fields" and "charges", "mass" and "energy", and the like, that are represented in the maths, we will find that they all denote "constructs of motion" and that their interactions resolve in motion transformations. I think if we understand this idea, then we will begin to truly understand our physics.

In questioning the foundations, we can simply ask the question: Is it spacetime transformations or is it motion transformations?

Rafael

The motion transformations idea is interesting.

You wrote: 'More than mere abstractions - space, substance, and motion are also phenomenal realities. Absolutely abstractions -time, instance, and duration are noumenal realities.' It reminds me of the writings of de Vinci, who also was seeking to express innovative concepts about motion and force. He also, like you, had to create new terms and associations of meanings to communicate the ideas.

Our conceptualisation of (gravitational) force and motion might need further changes before all is done.

Thank you

Dirk

Rafael

"the study of physics can be done in purely kinematic terms." Bravo. I was looking forward to your essay this year and it did not disappoint. My own shows the astonishing results of applying the kinetic approach; "...where the idea

is that the objects in motion are the motions themselves."

This indeed gives "... an infinitely hierarchical cosmos..."

My essay and end notes confirm full agreement with your; "...mass dominated universe always existed..." "...rippling cycles of growth...cosmic expansion that is driven by the spiraling orbital momenta..."

Your clear direct style and mathematics are also excellent. But of course you identify the big problem in physics with your last line; "...the intellectual community's perceptive examination of its merits."

Unfortunately of course the intellectual community understand little of physics, (or is it vice versa?) and those that do tend to they only consider nature. If we include influential mainstream or even dissident physicists as intellectuals the situation is little improved. 'Examination on merits' is 'science', where belief systems have little place so don't often venture.

None the less as an exception to prove the rule you can rely on a well earned ^ rating from this examiner.

You may also be one of the few able to fully penetrate and analyse the implications of my own essay, extending the effects of dynamic logic and kinetics from the quanta to the cosmos via discrete hierarchical spatial geometries. I look forward to your comments and any questions.

Very best of luck

Peter

Dear re castel,

Nice work. I enjoyed reading your views. They are different from mine, but, agreement with me is not a pre-requisite for correctness. I liked your presentation. Thank you for your essay.

James

Dirk, Peter, James,

I've been a bit busy and I haven't had time for the FQXi contest. I appreciate your comments very much. Thank you.

I am glad that there are more people looking into the idea of kinematic relativity and the idea of motion transformations. Not only here in FQXi but also elsewhere. Googling "kinematic relativity", I discovered that, based on the quality of the articles on the subject, the explorations on the ideas have improved so much in terms of the depth of the studies.

With more people interested, there is a higher chance for the exploration of the ramifications of the ideas that I am no longer able to explore because of various constraints.

I doubt that I will get enough support from the academic community. The BYU people that I thought would be interested in my ideas simply don't understand. I've received comments, for instance, in a letter from B. Kent Harrison a long time ago, he said he has no idea regarding what I mean with "kinetic constructs"; but I guess my idea is really very odd.

People are more inclined to think of the motions of space, the motions of time, the motions of particles, the motions of the aethereal medium of motion; but they have no appreciation of the simpler idea of the motions of motions. It is strange that very few can grasp the analysis that has brought the idea to the fundamental level of simply the motions of motions.

The idea of space-time transformations is a confused idea and an unnecessary complication. Taking the analysis down to the fundamental level reveals that the simplified/analyzed ideas regarding space, substance, motion, and also time, suggest that there is no need to move space or substance or time - the fundamental equations of motion suggest nothing else but the motions of motions - the motion transformations.

My idea is that space gets occupied - this is the simplest idea regarding space analized down to the fundamental level; there is no need to consider space transformations or its motions. Substance occupies space - this is the simplest idea regarding substance analized down to the fundamental level; separating the idea of motion from the idea of the space-occupant makes the space-occupant aethereal and there is no need to ascribe motions to the aethereal substance itself. But motion renders definitions (textures) to the substance - this is the simplest idea regarding motion analized down to the fundamental level. Thus, simply considering only the transformations of motion, we can already account for mass, energy, gravitation, all the physical forces, the nature of the whole cosmos, etc.

I've been on these ideas since the '80s, But I first discovered and clearly understood the genesis formula in the early '90s. I've written to Hawking years before his Grand Design book (it makes me wonder where he got his "creation because of gravity" idea); I've written to Hawking's DAMTP people and a lot of other people in US universities, etc. But it seems that it will take a bit more time for the science community to get to an appreciable understanding of my ideas regarding motion transformation, the genesis formula, and the origin of gravity.

Even the FQXi people appear uninterested. But I will not be surprised if somebody from the FQXi community will someday advance the ideas that I've put forth now. I am confident FQXi's Scientific Directorate will find something in my ideas if they'll only take a look. But that's so much wishful thinking.

I am hoping that more people will be interested in my ideas. My idea of motion transformations instead of space-time transformations appears to be rather unique - hardly anybody grasped the idea. It is nice that you read my essay and seem to really appreciate the ideas.

Thanks again.

re castel

I mean the FQXi Advisory Council also, not just the Scientific Directorate...

I have some points to discuss regarding your Figure 1. You did not state (probably due to constraints of the contest's essay length requirement) that when the light rays were initially emitted, both coordinate systems were coincident at their origins. In most renditions of this Galilean Transform diagram, the authors explicitly state that at coincidence of the origins, the "event" of the light source begins emitting the rays of light. This situation at the coincidence is the beginning of the epoch of time for the purposes of the argument. In other words, this is time tt=0=0. The emitter is obviously fixed to the S' coordinate system, (x', y', z') and "moves" with fixed coordinates, with the origin of that system.

You are correct to include the light rays in your diagram, most authors do not. In reality, the rays are actually just the same ray; both having been emitted simultaneously and in the same direction, at t=0.

Your depiction in figure 1 is actually a composite of three instances in time. The first instant is when the origins of both system S and system S' are coincident. The second instant in elapsed time is when the leading edge of the beam of light reaches the origin of S', and the third instant, of even longer elapsed time, is when the leading edge of the beam reaches the origin of S.

If we stipulate additional observers added to both coordinate systems, we can eliminate Einstein's problem with relativity of simultaneity. We do this by placing observer O't=0, and Ot=0, at the source; O't=1, Ot=1; at the origin of S', when the beam arrives at origin S'; and O't=2, Ot=2, when the leading edge of the beam gets to the origin of S.

At the first instant, (elapsed time = 0) when the origins of both system S and system S' are coincident, and the source emits the beam; observers at both origins do not see the beam because it has not traveled that far. Observers in both reference frames at the origin of S' (elapsed time =t1) see the leading edge of the beam arrive there. At yet a later elapsed time (elapsed time =t2), both observers at the origin of S see the leading edge of the beam arrive at origin S.

In the S coordinate system, at t0=0, the coordinates of (x,y,z) are identical in relation to the S origin, as the (x', y', z') coordinates are to the S' origin. So, in reality, those coordinates should be labeled: (xt0, ytt0, ztt0). At the later time, when S and S' have separated the time and distances = "vt1, and 2," the new "transformed" coordinates for (x,y,z) denoting the distances from the origins for each new position (t1 and t2) of x in S as the two reference frames recede from each other. (The coordinates for y, z, and y', z' remain at 0, since we are discussing the beam and not an expanding hemisphere of light as in the case of an isotropic emission as with a omnidirectional strobe light.

See my entry in this essay contest at A Logical Analysis of Albert Einstein's Mirror-Light-Clock Gedankin

Your comments will be appreciated. (I hope I have placed and named all the subscripts properly.

Rafael

I agree with your response. Frames ARE kinetic states, even in Minkowski's own conceptions. Your thesis is very close to mine, as we also found last year I recall, and which I hope you'll get time to read and score this year. There are other like minded authors here and a consensus group possible. It's looking positive. Hope you get more time.

Best wishes.

Peter

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Rafael!

You write: "The space-time transformations became te popular foundational principle in modern physics. But it has led to the stupor of ideas." Why did this happen? I think that the fundamental model of modern world order have no ontological foundation. Your ideas are great! But where ontological justification? Perhaps this is why such a misunderstanding. Unfortunately, I did not read your essay before, and contest is over, but I have now put a high public rating. Sincerely, Vladimir

Unfortunately, not in time. 5 minutes ago, an opportunity to put an end rating. Sorry! Success in promoting your ideas and foudation. Vladimir