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.

Dear Paul,

Do we agree that 'Space Conatins Energy' is statement of truth?

Vijay Gupta

Dear Georgina Parry,

Do we agree that 'Space Conatins Energy' is statement of truth?

Vijay Gupta

Dear Steve Dufourn,

Do we agree that 'Space Conatins Energy' is statement of truth?

Vijay Gupta

  • [deleted]

  • Post #36

Dear Vijay Gupta,

I tried to answer your question simply but it is not such an easy question as it seems, in my opinion. It depends upon the definitions of space, energy, contained and truth being used. Its late here so I'm not going to persevere with it now.

Thank you for your explanations of your model.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #37

Vijay

No. Because irrespective of what energy physically is, space does not physically exist, therefore it cannot "contain" anything. Physically existent 'substance' exists, the concept of space being a conceptual method for representing that 'substance's' (either in the singular or in conglomerate)relative spatial footprint (see para 13 my essay)

Paul

  • [deleted]

  • Post #38

Dear Vijay Guta,

I am not thinking about things in the same way as you. Therefore my answers will not agree with your own.I see energy as a change of something. For change to occur there must be a beginning and end, form, and/or position, of something. Within a uni-temporal universe there cannot be both beginning and end. As the beginning (form and position) is replaced by the end (form and position). So the energy is not contained by uni-temporal space but spans across sequential iterations of the universe. In everyday language energy exists in time not in space alone. If potential energy is included as a form of energy then that can exist within a single uni-temporal iteration as it is a consequence of an existing structure or relationship between bodies. Therefore there isn't a simple yes no answer.

By uni-temporal I mean having no temporal spread, or time dimension.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #39

Good afternoon dear Mr Gupta,

Not really because this space does not turn!

So, no you are false.:) but when we see the whole of this Universal Sphere and if we consider that this space is inside this system, so we can extrapolate that this space can activate its rotations.

The real ask is "is it possible ?" have we an other kind of particule if we consider that the space , the mass and light are purely the same in a kind of BEC.

Regards

Thanks Paul,

Very interesting. I have gone though lot of phases while meditating on the matters on what existence means. Does it mean what we can feel by sensory human power. Answer was no. What we can conceive or imagine? The answer was no!

The feelings about any subject do exist. They exist in our brain as impressions about others. We behave and respond based on these feelings. Then there is a sense of Security, Happiness and Enjoyment that also exists. To increase the level of these three virtues, we react to certain stimuli in a given manner. Does it mean that these things exist physically as they are referred in the statements above? Even subjects that are directly experienced by human sensory organs do not exist.

So the question is what does 'EXIST' mean?

Existence is a concept that eases our understanding of the reason behind our experiences. It is a hypothesis which is proven as a fact over long period of time. I answered existence on this basis.

Now coming back to basic question? 'Space contains Energy'.

What is space? To our un-encumbered intellect, we see that there is limit on quantity of water in the glass. When it is full, no more water can be held with-in the glass. We state this as there is limited space in glass to hold water.

Let us continue to space between objects without a container like glass in this case. Let us say, size of a playing field. We measure using threads and tapes, and mark the field as a court to play football. Now we are placing conditions on human activity of kicking the football based on space it will travel on receiving the kick. Thus human intuition has processed the space along with dimensions as well.

Space between stars and other heavenly objects is measured in terms of time of travel for light from one place to other. Though space is not material object, still it is very much material in affecting the delay it takes for light to travel.

After such deliberations, Pico-Physics finally arrived at a consensus definition for space and energy. This is presented in my essay as host to a concept. By giving a name and handling space as a substance in language used in human thought process, we are able to develop an understanding of nature which can be un-ambiguously communicated between humans and verified by individuals or group of people to be true or false. This more than anything else makes it real.

The concept of conservation was refined to present the contrast between space and energy. In the processes neutralization appears as weakness in concept of conservation. The new concept conservation without neutralization, is named as Konservation. Knergy is host reality of Konservation, as is space for Anti-Konservation.

This sits at the core of Pico-Physics.

In the above context

Do we agree that 'Space Contains Energy' is statement of truth?

Thanks for your comments

Regards,

Vijay Gupta