Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong? by Georgina Parry

Hi ,

Here are my equations, they help for a real understanding of the polarization m/hv.

E=m(c³o³s³)

mcosV=cosntant.

For all physical spheres, bosonic or fermionic.

The serie of uniqueness at the quantum or cosmological scale is finite and precise with the central sphere like the most important volume.

Now the bosons turn in the other sense than a fermion, so you can see the synchronizations of evolution.Now we have the 3 motions of the spheres, so c linear velocity, o orbital vel. and s spinal vel.

You shall see the answers to your doubts !

Regards

Frank,

I have taken the trouble to understand the concept of time and dimension and those concepts have been foundational to the work I have been doing for the last 6 years. I now understand that -you- are using the term dimension in a very specific way. I accept that the postulate you disagree with was possibly not clearly enough expressed for minds such as yours. As I pointed out to you a word definitions supplement was not allowed within the rules.

What I have said in the essay is within a context, a whole framework. Not isolated pronouncements on the structure or function of the external universe. Your methodology has to do with processes that have duration. The external universe that I imagine you are thinking of, when those words are said, includes a historical component. As processes, including oscillation, are spread over time. Within the explanatory framework described, that is a number of iterations of the Object universe. Only the youngest iteration exists. The historical collection of iterations is not the external Object universe that is in existence. Understanding that you should understand why the postulate could be given.

Now that might sound like nonsense. For it to make sense it is necessary to read the essay in its entirety from beginning to end. Then the diagram will be comprehensible and you will see that what you are saying about wavelengths is not incompatible with this framework. It just has to be looked at as fitting across iterations, if you are talking about what exists independently of observation, rather than within any single one. Or within the output Image reality formed from processing of received data.

Dear Azzam,

I don't think I can give you the answers you are looking for. I can not mark your mathematics.I cannot supply the kind of experimental results you require (See my biography). In the essay I have tried to express that I do not think that linear logic, building from facts (experimental results) or linear building of mathematics is enough to solve the many problems that there have been in physics.

What is the point of the most wonderful mathematics pertaining (for example) to the Big Bang and inflation, if such scenarios never happened? That would make it fantastic numerical story telling, mathematically brilliant- but not better physics than an interim verbal description that more closely matches reality. You will see at the end of the essay that full mathematical expression of the framework is a possible area for future research and development.

Thanks Steve.

Georgina

A tour de force bravo! I enjoyed going through your essay and should read it again for the big truths as well as the many small gems glistening between the lists. I am impressed how you have approached physics (and biology) holistically putting the observer and and thinker in her place to see a rather too complex conceptual 'reality' of theories assumptions (diagram 1) yet zeroed in on controversial physical truths I totally agree with. If you read my essay for the current fqxi contest (submitted but not yet online) you may see what I am talking about. I liked your definition of gravity as motion affecting the surrounding 'dust'. If you include under dust the vacuum ether nodes of my Beautiful Universe theory then we totally agree there!

Cheers!

Vladimir

Georgina,

You do an excellent job of dissecting the various inputs and outputs to current physics.

Tom makes an interesting point about how GR is just supposed to model gravity, not explain it. Safe to say though, that it is generally accepted as an explanation. If even Tom is willing to accept it is only a model, maybe there is hope physics will get beyond its current unicorn phase. One rather simplistic explanation for gravity might be that it's an effect of fusion. Rather than being an effect of mass, that it is a product of the creation of mass. When mass turns to energy, it expands, so might not the opposite be true, that when energy is contracting into mass, there is a resulting vacuum? From the most faint cosmic rays coalescing into interstellar gases(which would explain dark matter/excess of gravity on the perimeter of galaxies), to the creation of heavy metals in the core of stars. We could reverse Einstein's signature equation; M=e/c2.

John

Hi John,

thank you for reading it. I do appreciate your positive comment.

Yes Tom's point is interesting. Curvature of space-time is a good model for gravity, in that it corresponds to the experimental evidence. That correspondence does not prove that it is cause though. The argument I have presented shows why the experimental evidence should be expected to correspond with his model. It is only the assumption that that correspondence is showing causation of gravity that is wrong, not Einstein's model.

I am pretty sure it was Einstein who made that assumption. I don't have a handy quote of Einstein saying as much to hand, but I think I'll look for one now. This is an interesting thing, written by John Archibald Wheeler "Only by understanding gravity as the grip of spacetime on mass, and mass on spacetime, can we comprehend even the first thing about the machinery of the world-" Which indicates to me how fully the assumption has been accepted.

Thanks for the food for thought.

Vladimir,

thank you very much for reading my essay and for the very positive feedback that you have written.It was nice for me to read that and also good to learn what is appreciated. I look forward to reading your own essay soon.

you are Welcome,

Sincerely

Hello dear Georgina and dear Azzam,

Sorry Georgina, I don't want to utilize your thread.I d desire simply to give him a road for his understanding of his asks.

You know Azzam, Georgina is a good thinker, she can answer also to your doubts abouts several asks.

Dear Georgina : First of all a great BRAVO for your essay. It is really good thinking leading to interesting concepts. I am just struggling with my own essay and hope to submit it at the end of the month. On page 5 point 13 there are paralels with my Foam of Spheres and on page 7 : your data Pool reminds me of my Total Simultaneity. I really like your approach and wish you the best of luck with this contest.

Wilhelmus

Georgina,

I think you are right that it was Einstein himself. Wasn't it his comment something like; " Mass and energy tell spacetime how to bend and spacetime tells mass and energy how to move." ?

Models only model. Measurement might affect, but that's more a matter of the inherent fuzziness of being part of the system being measured.

It really goes down into the whole 'Math as foundational Platonic ideal belief system.' The philosophy that denies it's a philosophy.

Tom,

Several times posts haven't posted, as I rush off and come back to find them still in the box. The previous was one, so it was written before your recent post.

There are quite a few ideas tied up in your post, but the one I would address is what do we do, if our classical views are flawed? Epicycles being the classic example. It proved eminently possible to construct a mathematical model with the earth as the center of the universe, for the very simple and basic reason that from our physical point of view, we are the center of our view of the universe. Even the star maps of today would be meaningless from another location in the galaxy. This very success proved to be a profound stumbling block to further understanding. As is said of GR and QM, 'The math works, therefore it must be right.'

How do we go back and make sure all possible foundational assumptions are correct, when there is so much social and professional pressure to keep moving forward, even far beyond the point of rank speculation? I think even you have to admit that not only are there plenty of loose ends remaining, but many of those supposedly tied up bring to mind the old computing principle of "Junk in, junk out."

As for determinism, vs. probabilistic, it would seem we would have both, when the 'machine' is deterministic, but the input cannot be fully defined prior to an event. Otherwise, if we were to assume the laws of the machine are only just suggestions, all bets are off. Or we assume there is some God-like point of view, by which all input is known, even if the range of sources is effectively infinite. So it would seem the past is inherently deterministic, since all input has been factored into the outcome, while the future is inherently probabilistic, since there is no perfect set of potential input into events which have not occurred. It is only when one subscribes to some blocktime, or multiworlds view that the question becomes unanswerable.

Georgina, John, Thomas,

The problem with gravity is the way we define the terms mass and energy. Einstein received a lot of credit for presenting an equation that equated energy to mass, which may have been his way of agreeing with Max Planck's support of the theory of energetics, everything is a form of energy. Energetics fell out of favor once the particle theory of atomic structure became the accepted assumption.

We have become locked into the assumption that energy can only have the structural form and characteristics of a contemporary photon. It is very easy to identify an energy structural form that satisfies all the characteristics of gravity, satisfies the Newtonian "instantaneous-influence-at-a-distance" phenomenon and agrees with Maxwell's equations, but it would disrupt $100s of millions, probably into the $billions, of grants and funding for projects that are aimed at proving the curve-space time theory of gravity.

The prestige of those that control the scientific authority structure is based upon the receipt and control of funds. I do not perceive them willing to allow a new gravity concept to disrupt a well established flow of funds.

Frank,

I can understand what you are saying, yet I do feel science is far more motivated by faith, than greed.

There is the physics of politics, where belief systems go through a growth phase of increasing credibility, as they prove ever more successful at beating whatever opposition arises, until it becomes more a function of institutional management, than pursuit of vision and corruption sets in. Depending on their social and civil functions, different institutions can survive for much longer than others. So then there is the politics of physics.

Sciences cannot live in the corrupted phase for nearly as long as say, religious or political institutions. I think historians will look back on this and see the discovery of the Higgs as the apex of the current age, because once the glow of this success wears off and scientists start looking for new avenues to explore, they will not have the resources to push the current view much further, so there will be, gradually at first, a tendency to give more attention to the many issues percolating under the surface. Without that grand unifying effort to keep everyone pointed in one direction, first the fringes will raise their profiles a little further, then the debates within the ivory towers will start to grow louder. Then it will really start to come out in the open that many assumptions are not as solid as they have been presented to be.

Tom ,

to be fair to John A. Wheeler my quote is from "Journey into Gravity and Space-time" written by him back in 1990. His views may have changed. He also said in that writing- "Even the word universe, bandied about in many a book, conceals a mountain of ignorance. We don't know whether what we call" the universe" is open or closed or whether that distinction -with growth of our understanding -may not itself fade away into thin air, into undefinability, into nonsense.

So while on the one hand saying that "Only by understanding gravity as the grip of spacetime on mass, and mass on spacetime, can we comprehend even the first thing about the machinery of the world-" which sounds very certain -to me-, he is being very open minded about the realm itself in which the physics is occurring.

Georgina,

The problem with the issue of gravity started long before Einstein became involved. From what was known about electromagnetic (EM) fields, the propagated kind, individual electric charges and magnets, Einstein could not reconcile how any of these could accomplish the universal attraction of all objects that possess what is termed mass.

Heaviside did not help the propagated EM side of the argument, he transformed Maxwell's equations such that they fit what scientists of his era knew about these fields. It is an assumption that the Heaviside transforms are correct, and this has been carried forward to the present. There are many papers that reveal that Maxwell's original equations allowed an EM structure where both fields were not transverse, they supported a longitudinal element. With one of the EM fields aligned with the axis of propagation it is possible to identify an EM field structure that presents an attractant only force to another field of the same type.

The scientific community, by accepting Einstein's curved space-time theory of gravity, stuck their heads into a Lewis Carroll rabbit hole where bizarre theories beget bizarre theories. Einstein is credited with the quote, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Can anyone conclude Einstein's curved space-time theory of gravity is in any way simple? Your essay rejects the assumption that curved space-time is the cause of gravity.

Having an EM field structure would make it easy to understand the mechanism of the force of gravity, such that it could be taught at the high school science level.

Georgina, just for curiosity, have you read Lancelot Law Whyte's article on "Chirality?" (Leonardo, Vol. 8, pp 245-248 Pergamon Press 1975)

Chirality

Frank,

I have not only rejected curved space-time as the cause of gravity. I have explained why that must be so. As space-time is the product of processing received data and not the foundational external reality. Explanation of how that conclusion is reached can be found in the essay. As it is not space-time that is curved in foundational reality it can't be affecting bodies of matter.

I have not just left a void when discounting the curved space-time causal explanation. I later explained that the universal motion of all bodies must affect the environment of space in Object reality.( Don't remember my exact words without referring back to it) That can affect the motion of other bodies and affects the path of the light, giving the effects of gravitational attraction and curved space-time. So you can see from that that I don't think it is what the light is doing that is causing gravity either.It -is- the alteration of the environment, which the light is also travelling through; and that environment is not within space-time, but uni-temporal space.

Dear Wilhelmus,

thank you for reading my essay.I do appreciate your positive remarks about it. Glad you found some ideas in it that resonate with your own thinking.I look forward to reading your own essay when it appears.