• [deleted]

  • Post #13

Dear Georgina Parry

Continued (3-Dimesnions of space)

Understanding of space is build in contrast with Konservation with an eye on knowledge about nature already accumulated into our intuition. In the exercise to arrive at Unary law, we give pride of place to human intuition.

Some logically direct corollaries of Unary law are detailed at http://picophysics.org/unary-law/unary-law-corollaries/

The pdf commentary is available at http://vmguptaphy.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/unary-law-corollaries.pdf for download and keeping for reference.

The main derivative statements emerging out of this discussion are;

1.- Space has three dimensions

2.- Knergy moves at constant speed in space.

3.- Time is progressive and unidirectional.

4.- Knergy can be freely distributed in space.

5.- Space has affinity to possess Knergy

6.- Space devoid of Knergy is homogenous

These results give us sufficient leverage to call 'Space contains Knergy' as law of nature. Since it acts as mother law we call it Unary Law. Now all laws of nature at minimum need to meet the test of being compatible to this statement 'Space contains Knergy' or unary law.

5-Dimensional Universe is a statement that says that if you would like to consider space and Knergy together as one reality, there are five dimensions to it. This gives us the heading of this essay '5-Dimensional Universe'.

Most of the text in essay is my attempt to be able to speak in the context of mainstream physics.

Thanks and best regards,

Vijay Gupta

Good morning Paul,

Thanks for your comments on my essay. I appreciate yourself commenting your essay with paragraph numbers. It is a great idea.

I have meditated on reality quite a bit before coming to conclusions reflected in my current thinking. Your emphasis on logic and physical reality in Para 3 to 9 is perfectly compatible with special relativity and Lorentz transformations. Lorentz transformations can be read to state that if different realities exist with characteristic speed different than speed of light, they are mutually non-interacting. Their location can not be ascertained. This was one of my earlier conclusions drawn from reading Lorentz transformations.

My current approach is understanding reality in terms of reality and identity. I am at peace with this understanding, as I am able to order and control my thoughts on this basis. Before I developed this approach to reality, I remain confused on reality. May be I remained in confused state on reality for about 10 years.

Para 10 to 14 in your essay is looking at core/foundations/fundamentals of existence and reality. Mainstream physics uses our well developed intuition on these matters but is otherwise silent (at least not taught to us at school level). I have made an attempt to bring the intuition into picture when considering these aspects.

Para 15 to 24 divulge into different aspects of observation while Para 25 to 29 on measurement aspects. I agree on most of the points. Being an engineer, I think in terms of numbers and units. This is reflected in my approach to understanding these issues. My approach is available at http://picophysics.org/concepts/observation-observer/ .

Para 30 to 37 indicate the relationship of the ideas with mainstream physics. This is what all of us are doing here - attempting to evaluate our ideas for usefulness to mainstream physics. I believe you have great ideas and understanding about nature. I find them to be useful.

I greatly appreciate the time you have taken to help me in the process and continue to look forward to receive your comments on my thoughts and approach to understanding nature.

Thanks and Best Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Vijay

As discussed, a re-read. Again I found I could only respond with a set of points reflecting those made, in a sort of tangential way. Another way of putting this is I really do not understand what physically relates to that 4th dimension, konservation, anti-konservation, knergy, and host reality.

Physical reality is independent of sensory detection. And it is not the reality, as such, which is detected (in the sense of received by a sensory system), but a physically existent effect (a reality) arising from an interaction with it. Sensory detection has no effect on physical existence, other than the effect ceases at the point of reception (in just the same way as if it had hit a brick wall instead of an eye/ear/etc). The subsequent processing of this is irrelevant. It is just that the end result of it (ie individual articulated perception) is the only base from which the analysis can start. Though it could be argued that the sensory process as such, involves physics.

Any form of characteristic, etc, must have a corresponding physical existence, otherwise there is a flaw in the definition of it.

Any judgement (measurement) involves reference, because there are no absolutes.

All representational devices (eg maths) must have physical correspondence. Internal rationality is insufficient.

Space does not physically exist, physically existent states do. It being a method of conceptualising the relative shape/size of these states in terms of their 'occupation' (spatial footprint). 3 dimensions is the minimum number of dimensions of all those physically possible, that can be conceptualised, whilst still being valid as a representation of what physically exists (ie the highest level of depiction). I do not understand what physically relates to the 4th one proposed.

Time has no corresponding physical existence. Physically existent states in any sequence, differ. But difference involves more than one. Changes occur at different frequencies, whether comparing some of the same type or disparate types. Timing measures the rate of changes (ie rate of rate, change of itself). So this is concerned with measuring a characteristic of the comparison of states, not of one.

Paul

This is an attempt to understand the anonymous and aslo record my view point.

Dear Anonymous,

It is my pleasure to have you with us. In your comment you have mentioned ' insert physical causes'. I would like to talk about Physical Cause. In your statement, your belief in cause-affect logic is embedded. I share the same belief with you. We are also cautious of the fact of human limitation. We think in terms of one to one relationship between cause and affect logic, while in nature cause is an amalgamation (totality of all preceding events) of causes.

In PicoPhysics - totality of all preceding events that can affect an event is topological distribution Knergy (Matter) in space and space it self. Knergy (Matter) due to Konservation is unaltered at unit level (Quantum level - always indivisible/unit value equalling planks constant). The space factor is seen as time gradient with respect to geometric space (space density). Thus cause that controls/governs change is defined in PicoPhysics.

Thanks and regards,

Vijay Gupta

Good afternoon Paul,

You have a correct approach to read. With so much abstraction in science, it is always difficult to communicate thoughts correctly between thinking people. Being an engineer myself, I have faced this problem since my introduction to the subject of science.

4th dimension: Samay is the fourth dimension. It can be considered as time of a clock that is stationery to the observer. It also defines simultaneity between distinguishable events. Consider two events occurring at different locations with respect to an observer. Are they simultaneous? To answer this question, in relativity we have a set of concepts and assumptions. Still it can not be answered. If two events are simultaneous to one observer they are not so for another. There is no absolute simultaneity. I read a little from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity before forming this statement. In PicoPhysics; Konservation demands absolute simultaneity to enable counting of unit Knergy objects. If we can not count, unit Knergy objects that are in constant motion, assigning magnitude to Knergy in an object is meaningless. Thus we say, that all simultaneous events belong to same instant.

Now simultaneous event belonging to same instant occur at different positions in space. Th esperation between events now needs to be defined not only by physical separation but also by separation in samay (the 4th chronological dimension). Events that are simultaneous to one observer are simultaneous to all observers.

This is reflected in simple algebric equation as;

Separation between events is given by 't' as below;

t2

= x2 y2 z2 s2

Now when we define observer, it is defined with respect to simultaneity invariance with respect to observer by putting value 0 to s, the parameter for samay in above equation. Then we have;

t2

= x2 y2 z2

This is the equation at the core of special relativity and Lorentz transformations. While for PicoPhysics that is another manifestation of Konservation of Knergy.

Samay is the fourth or chronological dimension similar to other three Euclidean dimensions of space. 3-D space to 4-D space relationship is similar to plane (2-D) is to 3-D Cartesian space. (Except that this dimension is unidirectional to observer.)

I am thankful to you and your efforts to understand what may be the meaning. I donot know, if I am able to explain the 4th dimension or not. Please advice, if not I will attempt again to explain. My expressing power is slightly weaker than the task at hand demands. I will continue to try my best.

Finaly we need to change the presentation text and stype to be understandable to a cursry visitor to essay. I will reply to other points in a moment.

Thanks and Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Good afternoon Paul,

I will continue with my reply with 'Any judgement (measurement) involves reference, because there are no absolutes'.

You are right, as far as measurements are concerned there is no absolute - only comparison with standard objects. However, in nature absolutes exist as constants. They can measure differently depending on standard system of measurements adopted for scientific explorations. But they are constants and represent constant magnitudes. Speed of light is one such absolute. Plank's constant, Hubble's constant and Electronic charge are some other constants.

So absolute values do exist and can be used as standard. In picophysics we use plank's constant as natural standard for measurement of Knergy (Matter). Speed of light being a ratio by itself does not give us a standard. If electronic charge is taken as a standard. Speed of light will give us natural standards of length and time as well.

Thanks and regards,

Vijay Gupta

3-D SPACE

Good afternoon Paul,

I will continue with my reply with '3 dimensions is the minimum number of dimensions'.

You are perfectly right here. In PicoPhysics, these three dimensions evolve out of Unary law 'Space contains Knergy - pronounced as Kay Energy'. Details about the same are available at http://picophysics.org/unary-law/unary-law-corollaries/ where we discuss unary law further to evolve first level of statement for general use. These statements are;

1. Space has three dimensions

2. Knergy moves at constant speed in space.

3. Time is progressive and unidirectional.

4. Knergy can be freely distributed in space.

5. Space has affinity to possess Knergy

6. Space devoid of Knergy is homogenous

You will note that in PicoPhysics attempt is made to question some of basic assumptions that are result of human intuition being taken as fact of nature are explained and evolve out of unary law. 5-Dimensional universe is representation of Unary law in a different context.

Thanks and regards,

Vijay Gupta

Dear Vijay Gupta I enjoyed reading your paper, and see you are seriously seeking a new physics from fundamental new starting points. Your analytical approach to define terms both mathematical and physical reflects your seriousness - also the historical perspective you bring to the discussion. I found that I could not understand exactly what some of your terms mean - perhaps concrete examples will be helpful. For example what is neutralization? I agree with you that a 5th dimension of energy is essential in conventional physics. In my Beautiful Universe Theory the ether nodes are carriers and transmitters of this energy of space. Such a 5-dimensional Universe was proposed in Kaluza-Klein theory. It has been suggested that the 5th dimension pertains to ether particles.

Keep up the good work! Best wishes

Vladimir

    Vijay

    "It can be considered as time of a clock that is stationery to the observer"

    Rather than me typing out the argument about simultaneity perpetrated by Poincare and then fossilised by Minkowski, can I please ask that you read my post of 11/7 19.33 on my blog. This misconceived concept, along with the substitution of light speed for distance is where it all went wrong (which could have been an alternative essay)

    Similarly, rather than me explaining what SR actually is, etc, Which I have done in previous posts, can you please read my post 13/7 11.24 on my blog.

    "I do not know, if I am able to explain the 4th dimension or not"

    On the assumption that it has some form of connection with time, then yes sufficiently for me to say that this cannot be so. Any reality (ie physically existent state) cannot involve a form of change, otherwise what is being referred to is, by definition, more than one, and the intention is to describe one, not the identified differences between 'ones'.

    "However, in nature absolutes exist as constants."

    Physical reality exists independently of sensory detection. Some components of it may always manifest the same value. Nothing is measured "differently". Measuring has one logical form, ie comparison to identify difference. And if one wants the various results to be comparable, then one must maintain consistency of reference.

    "Speed of light is one such absolute"

    The speed of light is not an absolute, neither did Einstein say it was, in the real world. Light is the result of an atomic reaction, therefore it always starts at the same speed. And by definition, if there is no impediment, it will continue at that speed (in 1905 & SR it is in vacuo, in GR it is not). Logically, calibrating the speed of light is effected the same way as calibrating the momentum of an albatross. They are both just physically existent phenomena, travelling. Of course there are certain practical difficulties, but that is another issue. In other words, the fact that subsequently, an example of light might be received by a seeing sensory system is irrelevant.

    Re 3 dimensions. Careful, I do not say there are 3 dimensions, what I say is that 3 is the absolute minimum one can have and still be ontologically correct in terms of conceptualisation, ie it is the highest level possible.

    Paul

    • [deleted]

    • Post #22

    Sorry for the anonymous, I forgot to post my name.

    You are welcome, you know Mr Gupta, I am trying just to show you how the light and the mass are polarized in a pure deterministic evolutive space time. Now if we link with the central spheres and their more important volumes due to this serie of uniquenss.The fractal is finite.The rotations make the road. Can we consider these steps like dimensions, no ! Because the rotations are in 3D.

    If the informations of consciousness are part of the building.So, we must consider the volumes of spheres in a pure distributivity of evolutive consciousness.Now of course for a real understanding of these consciousness, evolving, so we must insert the walls separating this infinite light and this pure 3D physicality, the Universal Sphere in my model, and the quant.and cosm.spheres and their pure finite serie. The consciousness is in increasing inside this physicality. If the light is infinite above the walls, you know, this light does not turn.So there are no dimensions in this system of pure conscious light if I can say. If this light in the physicality becomes mass on the entropical arrow of time, so we can understand the necessity to have these 3D and the time constant in its pure irreversibility.

    The vectors are there for a pure spherization of spheres by spheres inside an universal 3d sphere in optimizationn of mass.See that the light is infinite anbove the walls, inside the physicality, it is a pure finite system .the way of harmonization spherization implies that the future is fascinating when we consider the Universal sphere in its whole. The ternity exists but it is a little if I said that we are in a big project of optimization of this light becoming mass.We cannot dear Mr Gupta create doors, our pure rule of complementary evolution is to improve the physicality.We are like ctalyzers of spherization.The real beauty is this physicality and all its contemplations in imrpovement.The consciousness is an evidence, but is it necessary to insert a vector for that ? I beleive humbly that no.

    Best Regards

    Goodmorning Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

    It is a pleasure to receive your comments on my work. I am encouraged by your words. My efforts are directed towards understanding nature. I still have some hurdles to cross. One of them is to decide on natural units of measure. We have already zeroed on planks constant h (for Knergy) and speed of light (ratio). We need at least one more and have to decide between electronic charge and Hubble's constant. While electronic charge is more desirable, Hubble's constant is equally viable.

    Neutralization: This term was first exposed to me in chemistry lab thru Titration for quantitative chemical analysis in the context of Neutralization Reaction between acids and base. Neutralization meant that each of two reactants neutralizing effect of the other resulting in neutral (ph level 7) of remnants. I applied the same to charges (Nucleus and electrons) present in atoms to resulting into neutral atom. Further electron positron reaction resulting into disappearance of these particles reinforced neutralization as characteristic of charge. It makes natural for charge to exist in two states that neutralize the affect of each other. That is how I suppose they are termed +ive and -ive charge. Since conservation as a term is applied to charge as well as momentum, we seek to distinguish this conservation from conservation as applied to energy or matter. This gave us the basis for Konservation - conservation without neutralization.

    5th Dimension: Yes I do believe the same. It is also important to note the difference PicoPhysics makes between space and universe. Universe includes space as well as Energy. Some readers are getting mixed up with dimension of space and dimension of universe. It is clearly stated the three dimensions of space and two of Knergy contribute to five dimensions of space. But degrees of freedom are not 5 but 4 (less than 5).

    Beautiful Universe: First I learn how to include URL reference. I will try the same in my conversations as well. I read your beautiful presentation and wish I had the same skills as yours to present the ideas so beautifully. The terms QM, SR and GR has been foreign to my thought processes. I agree on most of the basics in your paper - mathematical model. I don't know about developments in science after special relativity. They were in the curriculum of applied science in my time. I believe your presentation is closer to reality to some abstractions we make to understand nature.

    Kaluza-Klein theory: I googled for Kaluza-Klein theory and find it interesting. It will not be peoper for me to comment on the same at this time since I know just the name. It is interesting because it considers space to be 5-dimensional. Thus in a way, spacetime is discussed as representation of universe that includes energy present in space. In PicoPhsyics space has three dimesions. There is clear distinction between space and knergy. They are rather complementary of each other considering Konservation and Anti-Konservation. Space acts as a container of Knergy.

    I would like to thank you for pointing me to this interesting and great work 'Kaluza-Klein theory'.

    Thanks and regards,

    Vijay Gupta

    Good morning Steve Dufourny,

    When I started to reply to your message, It opened up window to put my name. I had to login to be myself. So it happened to me as well. You may received this reply as anonymous.

    Thanks for your comments. I view human knowledge of the universe into two distinct areas in science. Humans exercise control over one of them. I limit myself to the area where we as human control the outcome. I don't attempt to understand consciousness or God. I find myself not capable to understand these areas knowledge. May be God-Particle (Higgs-Boson) we may have an opening into this area.

    But in PicoPhysics there is no place for Higgs-Boson as well. PicoPhysics is an alternative to standard model, not a component of the same. It assigns properties of inertia and gravitation directly to interaction between space and Knergy. Polarization, interference and diffraction are important aspect of unit conserved object (Photon) well accounted for in PicoPhysics. It is able to account for the same due to a clear distinction between Knergy and Energy with respect to conservation. The same is true of electromagnetism, inertia, gravitation, astronomical observations as well.

    In addition, PicoPhysics model is Knergy-Cycle. Knergy goes through different stages. The stages being Matter, Cosmic background radiations, Dark energy, Elementary particles. Matter - Fusion into complex nucleus and atoms, gravitational accumulation into stars etc. It is able to address atomic as well as nuclear properties as well due to visualization of formation of matter as confinement of Knergy in space.

    To me, PicoPhysics give me piece of mind in knowing that I have an understanding of nature. Mysteries of nature have bothered me since childhood.

    May I request you to rate my essay.

    Thanks and regards,

    Vijay Gupta

    Steve

    But...light is just another physically existent entity. Most examples of it just hit brick walls or whatever, ie not eyes. The fact that it enables sight, ie has acuired a functional role in the evolution of sensory systems, is irrelevant. So one measures its speed, just like one does anything else. There may be practical difficulties in doing so, but that is another issue, and not a reason to attribute light with some form of 'mysterious' quality.

    Paul

    Good Afternoon Paul,

    It is pleasure to receive comments as detailed as yours. I feel honoured. Given below is my understanding as Pico-Physicist on the points mentioned in your message.

    4th Dimension connection with time: You are correct in one aspect. It is not associated with space. The integration of Special theory of relativity with PicoPhysics as mentioned in my last message refers to dynamics of interaction of space with Knergy. The fourth dimension belongs to Knergy; it is experienced by observer in dynamic situations. Observer is another abstract construct in science. I believe it will be confusing to discuss it here.

    Change is essential to nature. We need to be able to address the change in any thought process dealing with nature. However, as you mentioned, change involves more than one. The reality and chronological dimension need to exist together. Thus 3-Dimensions of space, the chronological dimension (represents reality of continuous change in universe) and the reality itself are five aspects of nature.

    Natural Units and Constants: Here the issue is more fundamental than sensory perceptions. We need to be able to say why Energy of Photon and Frequency are related to plank's constant? Why electronic charge is multiple of electronic charge? The search is for answers to these fundamental questions and quantization that exists naturally.

    Speed of light not absolute: You are correct in this assertion. It tallies with PicoPhysics through the concept of space density and unary interaction (Refraction of light) that describes path of UCO or light as it travels through heterogeneous space. However, when space is homogenous and unperturbed by presence of matter, the speed of light is constant. This characteristic speed being referred here as absolute and a natural unit similar to plank's constant. Both are seen as natural unit and will measure to unity in proposed natural units of measure for physical realities.

    3-D space: Minimum 3-dimesions suffice for space and can be established by unary law. In PicoPhysics we give a proof that space needs to have a minimum of three dimensions and simultaneously accept to have 3-dimensions. Why it shall have 4 or any other number of dimensions. I believe in simplicity and beauty of nature. The target for PicoPhysics is to device a thought process consistent with human intuition using minimum number of variables, concepts and constants and brings science back to common man. Still we are working on the logic for distance as sum of square of value difference in end point co-ordinates. Once that is achieved, the geometrical properties of space will become part of unary law. In PicoPhysics, we want to minimise assumptions, variables and constants.

    Thanks and best regards,

    Vijay Gupta

    • [deleted]

    • Post #27

    Hello Mr Gupta,

    You are welcome. You know , even the higgs bosons cannot answer.In fact it is above our understanding. I see the things like a pure universality. I don't name this entropy.It is not necessary, the most important is to act like catalyzers of harmonizationspherization of mass systems in evolution and complexification in 3D.

    I beleive that the informations indeed are relevant.So the bosonic informations indeed can help for a real uinderstanding of the synchronized volumes and rotating spheres.But I don't see a necessity to insert god particules for informations. If we have ultim informations coming from this light(after walls)and from so the central sphere of this universal sphere.So it is intriguing.But I prefer to accept this evolutive physicality in its pure beauty of imrpovement. The bosons are spheres with an entanglement and different volumes.So the informations are so numerous, even infinite.The sortings become keys of universality.Personnaly I beleive that our fermionic stability has a more important potential about the informations of evolution and encodings. The light is fascinating and the bosons are relevant also for complementary informations, of evolution.That said, I beleive that a pure taxonomy of sortings and synchros become important.The volumes of spheres and their rotations seem the best road.

    That said, the central spheres in its pure singularities and the central sphere at the quantum and cosm.scales, seem very intriguing. Already that we do not well what is a BH , these central spheres of galaxies.So you imagine the central sphere of this universe, this central BH.and its volume ?Intriguing.Is it a productor of informatives light like say the bosons of higgs.Is it the trasformationmas light with the codes....? it is intriguing.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #28

    Hi Paul,

    You know, I am rational, always in my works.I say me that it is the only solution , the light in mass on the entropical arrow of time. It is evident.

    It is an universal evidence ! What is this entropy? we search and we accept our young age at the universal scale Paul,13.7 to 15 billions years, it is young still, it is only simple that this, we evolve in fact in trying to understand the dynamics of this Un iversal 3D sphere where light becomes mass.The higgs are not really irrational in a pure universal analyze.

    But I prefer the codes inside the gravity evolving by polarizations of bosons indeed.

    The rationalism of our universal sphere in 3D is a pure determinism, in this road, the higgs are not an answer.

    The bosons are numerous and very complex in their rotations and volumes.The fracatal from the main central sphere is always fascinating.......is it the paradise dear Paul which increases in mass like its spheres turning around , what is this central sphere ?:) difficult like answer no ?

    Regards

    Good Afternoon Steve Dufourny,

    I believe at certain stage science developed fascination towards elementary particles as only agents (of exchange) for action at a distance. This concept was easy escape to explain many of the facts of nature known intuitively like superposition theorem, transfer of energy etc. In this fascination these particles became pre-requisite for information exchange as well. When photons were discovered they were put into this category by default. This is the period when we were charmed by beauty of well formulated universal laws of nature like conservation of momentum, energy, change, invariance principle etc.

    Over time exceptions has been found. The laws have multiplied. Assumptions in science have grown to explain ever increasing experimental dataset and its variety. The complexity of science (physics) can be compared to excess of data on chemical combinations before advent of periodic table. Or the times of law of chemical combinations that led to Dalton's Atomic Theory of Matter. So with due respect as a Pico-Physicist I tend to take laws from mainstream physics as experimental facts which are true in the environment they are formulated and discovered.

    In my engineering studies, it was difficult for me to understand Fermi-Dirac statistics and Fermi level. I had to just do with density of energy states and energy levels to understand the properties of semiconductor materials. Bose-Einstein or Maxwell-Boltzmann Statistics was never part of my education. I am immune to some of advanced concepts of physics.

    However, I understand Entropy. I gave some consideration to laws of thermodynamics as unary lawfor rethink process in PicoPhysics. The abstractness and dependence on concepts other than contained in the law itself made me move away from the same.

    Today, state of development of PicoPhysics gives me satisfaction that I made a right decision in late 70s to put my identify conservation as basis for rethink processes.

    Many of the concepts in your message are foreign to me because of lack of education on my part. I am attempting to return back to physics after about 40 years to evaluate if PicoPhysics thought process developed in relative isolation of mainstream physics is of any use to physicists in understanding nature. I donot understand the spheres etc in your message. Are these constructs explaining inverse square law?

    In PicoPhysics we find that inverse square law is approximation of a general law that leads to inverse square forces loosing its relationship with source at low specific strength level. Similarly at sufficiently high strength level the inverse square law breaks down due to affinity of space to possess Knergy.

    Thanks and Regards

    Vijay Gupta

    Steve

    "the light is mass"

    Whatever light is, precisely, it is a physically existent phenomenon. We receive it. So do brick walls, but they have not evolved sensory systems that can use it. It travels, somehow, from the spatial position where the interaction with other physically existent phenomena occurred, to the eye. Hence in terms of calibrating its speed, or accepting that it could come under some form of impediment en route, it has to be considered in just the same way as any other moving entity. Its acquired functional role, with the evolution of sensory systems is irrelevant to the physics.

    "what is this entropy"

    What is causing it, how it works, etc are other issues. But it is the sequence I keep referring to, which seems to be causing so much problem. Leaving aside all metaphysical possibilities, as this is science, not religion, we know two things: 1) physical existence is independent of sensory detection, 2) physical existence involves alteration. That means physical existence is a sequence. In a sequence only one state can exist at a time, because the predecessor must cease in order that the successor can occur. The degree of change, and the duration, involved, must be vanishingly small, but there must be a point of non-divisibilty. And that, at any point in time is what is physically existent (commonly known as the present). That point (ie unit in timing) being determined by the fastest example of change which occurs in physical reality, because timing is the rating of change.

    Paul

    Vijay

    "It is pleasure to receive comments as detailed as yours"

    That's OK. As some will verify, albeit through gritted teeth, I will always continue a dialogue. Neither am I bothered about this not being on my blog, as I am after the facts, not some form of beauty contest.

    Having said that, I find I immediately have to refer you across to my post in my blog of 13/7 11.24, as you start with the "integration of SR". I found it very difficult to convey the point in a normal post, so I have taken advantage of that blog to post a 6 page essay explaining what SR is, given the start point as to what Einstein said it was.

    Then I can respond as follows working through your post:

    1 As said above to Steve, observation is irrelevant to the physics. That processing occurs subsequently, it does not alter what was physically existent.

    2 Change is a must for physical reality to occur. Or at least to be precise, occur more than once. Again see above response to Steve. This being the core of my essay.

    3 There are only physically existent phenomena. Space is a conceptualisation of the relative size/shape thereof, ie the notion that these can be viewed as 'occupying' 'space', as in spatial footprint. The number of dimensions involved is a function of the number of directions the smallest thing in reality could travel from any given point. Halved, because the concept of dimension is a direction, either way. 3 is the minimum any conceptualisation of that can be, and still be ontologically correct as a conceptualisation. As said above, there is only one physically existent state at a time, so there is no change (which is what time relates to) in it. Timing concerns rating change.

    4 There is some form of elementary 'it', indeed probably a few different types, with innate properties. Again this has nothing to do with sensory perception, it must be so for existence to occur.

    5 My point about light speed, is that light is just another physically existent entity. The fact that it happens to enable sight is irrelevant to its physics.

    6 You do not have to devise a thought process consistent with human intuition. Human intuition and all forms of sensing by all forms of organism are irrelevant. Just put yourself in the position of some one external to this physical reality, of which we are a constituent, they would just sense physical things interacting.

    Paul

    • [deleted]

    • Post #32

    Hello Mr Reed and Mr Gupta,

    It is intersting to see your lines of reasonings. I like always seeing the philosophy of thinkers.It is intresting to see how is their universal faith in this evolutive space time.THE SPHERE .:)

    Mr Gupta, have you behind your beautiful words full of consciousness, a little of vanity because you insit on your lack of learnings.is it a false humility in fact Mr Gupta ? You make an opposite thought quickly in your posts,but it is just a simple humble suggestion from a humble starwalker you know.

    The most important is to understand what is this consciousness in all humility of course.Sometimes people shows a big humility and in the same time they are arrogant.It is probably because they do not accept the rational critics.It is the human nature and its meanders.But we evolve , isn't it ?

    I make exactly the same that those persons.Just to show them that it exists generalists.and the rules of generalists is to show the roads of foundamentals.

    The aim is not to add the names of our past or actual scientists but to understand what are the real rational and deterministic works.The rest is vain after all.

    Now , if you want to learn more about my spheres. Ask concrete asks !

    But you know I am not sure that all people can understand my theory.But perhaps that yes you can. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity isn't it ?

    The consciousness they say.........have you already killied or crushed a hymenoptera? if yes, your consciousness is not at its paroxysm.Not need of a vector or a scalar to understand that in the rotations of stars, we see the danses of the universal sphere.....and that we are aware and cosncious of this universal truth.

    Mr Reed, interesting post.

    Regards to both of you and good luck in this contest.