Dear Eckard:

Thanks for posting this.

First of all, thanks for correcting my spelling of ideell. I had known that, but I think I confused it with the French.

Secondly, I certainly wasn't blaming you for sloppiness in language. I think that was your criticism in the previous post, which I agreed was an issue, so I was just clarifying the actual intended use of the word "for", which you pointed out could be taken to mean something else. You wrote, "Do they really happen for observers or do they happen at the location where they happen?" and I agreed it was the latter and that the use of the word "for" is sloppy.

Finally, most importantly, from the rest of your comments I'm pretty sure you haven't read my essay despite, where I argued *for* an absolute cosmic time, despite your criticism that there are weak points in my view. I've argued that despite the way time passes in arbitrary frames of reference according to relativity theory, cosmology indicates that there has to be one true cosmic passage of time, against which time scales for relatively moving observers. I've pointed out that this means an absolute simultaneity-relation. Such a universal frame of reference and universal time does not---and cannot, according to relativity theory---come to mean absolute *synchronicity*, though. Unless you're denying SR entirely, you can't claim this because according to the theory two clocks in relative motion can't be synchronised: from either one's perspective, the other's rate has to be slowed. However, as I've shown in my essay, this does not mean that there can't be a coherent universal time that defines absolute *simultaneity*.

Daryl

Dear Daryl,

A bit pregnant is impossible. Either one denies the separation between past and future, then one has good chance to win the contest, or one denies SR entirely. In the first case one is a monist who looks at the world from outside, In the opposite case one does not leave the own perspective inside the real world. While I respect those who hope for a third possibility, I am sure, they will at best cheat themselves.

That's why my essay starts with Einstein's "something outside science" and ends with my "trust in inexhaustible chances" to reveal mistakes like those by Nimtz and by Michelson/Lorentz. I anticipate many to either ignore my essay or give me the lowest possible score after they failed or did not even try to refute my Fig. 5.

If I persuaded you to reconsider your belief then you will hopefully not be so naive to frankly utter your change from Saulus to Paulus in public. This could damage your career.

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

I have in fact proven the possibility of this third alternative (the one you state, not Pentcho: I'm for the two postulates, just not the third---that absolute space and time are superfluous and can't be detected---and I DO NOT sing Divine Einstein) in my essay. It is by definition impossible for "observer" C' to interact in any way with "observers" A, B, and C, who exist in an absolute "flowing" present.

By the way, with regard to your Saulus/Paulus comment, have you by chance read Ref. [9] by Weyl in my essay. It's quite a neat article. For example, after Petrus opens with "Lass uns heute ausfuehrlich darueber sprechen, warum du nicht mehr glaubst, dass (*M*) die Traegheit eines Koerpers durch das Zusammenwirken aller Massen des Universums zustande kommt. O Saulus! Saulus! wie kannst du dich so gegen die offen zutage liegende Wahrheit verstocken!" Paulus responds by saying "ich deine eben ausgesprochene Ueberzeugung nicht mehr zu teilen vermag; und wenn hier der Fels liegt, auf dem die Relativitaetskirche steht, o Petrus!, so bin ich in der Tat ein Abtruenniger geworden. Aber um dich ueber meine Ketzerei ein wenig zu beruhigen..."

You can call me Paulus if you'd like, because I do think space-time geometry is Lorentzian, and that the mathematical theory of relativity is correct---just so long as you know that I'm for a presentist interpretation of the theory that involves an absolute cosmic time and is therefore fundamentally at odds with much of what relativity theory is commonly supposed to describe.

Daryl

Since this is an English site, here's my translation of that quote:---

Peter: "Let us talk today in detail about why you no longer believe, that (M) the inertia of a single body results from the interaction of all the masses of the Universe. O Saul! Saul! how can you so harden yourself against Truth that is as clear as day!"

Paul: "I can no longer share this outspoken conviction of yours; and if here lies the rock on which the relativity church stands, o Peter!, then I have indeed become an apostate. But to calm you a little about my heresy..."

(I referred to this in a footnote on page 3 of my essay, where I quoted Peter's later remark: "If the cosmological term fails to help with leading through to Mach's principle, then I consider it to be generally useless, and am for the return to the elementary cosmology [Wenn es mit Hilfe des kosmologischen Gliedes nicht gelingt, das Machsche Prinzip durchzufuehren, so halte ich es ueberhaupt fuer zwecklos und bin fuer die Rueckkehr zur elementaren Kosmologie.]")

Dear Daryl,

I learned from you that in gambling, if you bet one pound on a horse whose odds are 10 to 1, you will receive ten pounds if the horse wins.

I am not interested in and I cannot say anything about de Sitter's gambling. The same applies for Big Bang speculations. When Weyl used St. Paul and St. Peter as to dispute with Einstein, this might be different from my use of the metaphor Saulus/Paulus. You outed yourself as a presentist who prefers an absolute time.In the latter we seem to agree. What about my objection against presentism read my first appendix. Did you find some agreement with neo-Lorentzians like e.g. Selleri?

Best,

Eckard

Pentcho,

Your logic is not compelling. You omitted the possibility that both postulates may be at least imperfect. The postulate of constant c may be wrong if c is referred to the observer while correct if c refers to an absolute space. The postulate of relativity seems to be quite logical. However, the with the same argument did Dedekind successful beg for accepting something nobody ever can prove. The Galilean relativity assumes a closed cavity. Electromagnetic fields extends endlessly.

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #138

Eckard, you wrote: "The postulate of constant c may be wrong if c is referred to the observer while correct if c refers to an absolute space."

You are right in a sense but note that, whether or not Einstein says it explicitly, the conclusions of special relativity are derived from the assumption that the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER or IN THE FRAME OF THE OBSERVER is constant. Just take a look at some textbook derivation of time dilation: first it is assumed that the speed of light is c in the observer at rest on the ground's (B's) frame and then the miraculous time dilation is derived.

So if the postulate of constant c is wrong when c is referred to the observer, then that's the end of relativity.

Pentcho Valev

    Hello Eckard. In English, I do not read this essay with your familiar on the annotation and successfully. That's what I understood. How to avoid mathematical physics determinism neobsnovannoy intuition? Suggest this approach. We do not know the origin of mathematics. On this, we are moving in its field intuitively, without analyzing. You can see the literal math, operates numbers and quantities. And you can see the abstract mathematics. An abstract mathematics is geometry and formulas. The formula E = mc2 literally. Maybe she needed a scientist to make a nuclear bomb. But in school textbooks it unnecessarily. Abstract formula gave M.Plank. It has not yet begun to analyze. Physics necessary abstraction. But this is metaphysics. A bit of metaphysics in my essay "The information - quantum energy balance" of 30 August.

    Mistranslation of information - quantum energy balance. Necessary: information - quantum energy balance.

      Pentcho Valev,

      Einstein's relativity is dead, vivat Einstein's relativity. Georg Cantor's naive set theory is dead, vivat Georg Cantor's naive set theory. Read what Ebbinghaus wrote with Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's words: If someone by an obvious error ...

      Even if Einstein's synchronization is logically unfounded and if there are an absolute space and absolute simultaneity; There are ample experimental results that obviously confirm for instance the impossibility to accelerate matter in excess of c.

      It is true that for instance the atomic bomb was wrongly celebrated by laymen as an achievement of Einstein's SR. I agree with Roger Schlafly that Einstein has been overestimated. I see him idolized, and I contempt idolizing.

      My intention is to clarify whether or not already Lorentz was misled by Michelson. So far nobody refuted my reasoning concerning Feist's experiment. Eventually I will show that Einstein's was not wrong in his resignation when he admitted that the now worries him seriously. My favorite essay was written by Ken Wharton. I consider it a beautiful collection of arguments in defense of Einstein whose weakness should be revealed one by one. Did you deal with this target?

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #141

      Hello Vasily,

      Neobosnovannaja intuicia = unfounded intuition. Neobosnovannoy = of the unfounded ... ? I can only guess what you intend to say, and I noticed that you did not yet compare physics with balanced control in a power grid (IEB) but you also repetitiously referred to Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Immanuel Kant stated: "Spsce and time are quanta continua." I do not disagree.

      And yes, mathematics is ranging from discovered most unavoidable logic to wildly speculating individual creations.

      Incidentally, Orenburg is only about 500 km remote from Kasan where Shtyrkov lives. Do you agree with him?

      While the English translation of your essay is readable to me, I do not deal with consciousness.

      Eckard

      Dear Constantinos,

      The idealist Hegel rejected atomism as materialism. Even Mach and Ostwald hesitated to accept atoms as real. I noticed that you supports the essay by Mark Feeley who does not just favor fields instead of particles, which I could accept, but he vaguely combines the fields with sterile Parmenidean monism.

      You wondered why I feel intrigued by Alan Kadin. As I already stressed, I appreciate his style of reasoning. Standing 3D waves are like localized particles; they are different from propagating energy. Alan Kadin believes in Einstein's relativity. Nonetheless I agree with him concerning Hilbert space.

      See also my attempt to challenge back-causation phantasm by Wharton and Ellis.

      Best,

      Eckard

      Dear Sergey Fedosin,

      Instead of humble revelations of which basic assumptions are wrong and providing references to possibly questionable work, essay 1410 offers an impressive bundle of alternative ideas of a single genius, dealing even with ball lightning.

      To me, the text of 1410 is a bit hard to digest although I would like to confirm that your English is nearly perfect.

      I wondered why my computer warns me about a possibly not trustworthy source when I intended to get explained what SPF-symmetry stands for.

      What about my objection against Einstein synchronization, I suspect a round trip measurement should entirely belong to either the past, or in case of preparation to the future in order to be reasonable.

      Can you offer an explanation of Feist's measurement?

      Eckard Blumschein

      Hello Eckard. Intuition gives some information that you can find the right one. Correctness of the information verified in many ways, this is obsnovanie. "Curvature of space" - a false justification. Kant wrote better understood as having no scientific and educational importance. Kant used the excellent education he received. What is a continuum? Black body radiates heat. That means, the heat in the form of photons? Kontinnum - continuous medium malostrukturirovannaya, simple. Ether, water, gravity, light - continua. Time is of the origin of odnovrmennosti. Shtyrkov Atsyukovsky and right, the ether is. Now a physicist, Einstein, that she does not need air. Origin of the substance, in all their diversity, must explain the physics - biosubstantsy, minerals, metals, and other gases. That physics explains that biology will confirm. In this origin needs air. Physics tells of the origin of matter, in general, without going into details. Poiskhozhdenie with ether - is in the details.

        Hi Vasily,

        In order to enable everybody to possibly understand what you wrote I will first try and translate some words into English language:

        proiskhozhdenie = origin

        obosnovanie = reason

        light - continuum = light is a continuum

        malostrukturirovannaja = (female adj.) small-structured

        odnovremennosti = of simultaniety

        Let me tell you what kind of comments to my essay I appreciate:

        - At first those which are challenging me to reconsider and possibly correct it

        - Support by qualified experts

        - High scoring because this creates attention

        - Hints to something relevant I was not yet aware of.

        Your comment art least fulfills the latter criterion. I was not yet aware of Atsyukovsky. I will certainly find him via www.antidogma.ru and check his work.

        I will also check whether you wrote an essay. If it is relevant to my reasoning I would like to ask you for permission to reply here.

        Regards,

        Eckard

        Hi hoang cao hai,

        For a moment I felt a bit ashamed because you treats me with the same sentences as you already treated others. Doesn't my essay deserve better? Then I looked at your biography and remembered Vietnamese students of mine. If I recall correctly, your first name might be hai, the last one. All my students from Vietnam, China, or Japan were distinguished by extraordinary high motivation and diligence. I guess, in particular in Hanoi more of the elderly people speak French or German than English.

        You wrote: "It would be more reasonable if we develop an essay contest ... ?" I guess you meant "Would it be ... ?"

        You wrote: "... the movement speed of light in the atmosphere on Earth averages about 90.000 km / s". Perhaps your command of English is better than your knowledge in physics.

        I hope you will be able to nonetheless understand at least in part my claim that my essays 833 and 1364 provide correct and necessary corrections to what you aptly called "inveterate" assumptions.

        Best wishes,

        Eckard

        Dear Escard, the paper: Feist N: Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment - ; Proceedings of the NPA 6 (2010), 1-4, Fig. 7. is unavailable for me, I can say nothing about it.

        Sergey Fedosin

          Dear Eckard,

          Hegel continuous to be among my most favorite modern philosophers. His "Phenomenology of Spirit" had a profound influence in my thinking. I draw much insperation and intellectual guidance from him still. But my criticism of "atomism" is different from Hegel's.

          I am less concerned with "atomism" in Nature than "atomism" in our thinking. The "particle view" has dominated our thinking and our theories of the Universe since Newton and beyond. And though unquestionably successful, such 'mental frame' reflects Western values and norms which have their inherent limitations. I believe we've reached such 'theoretical limits' in Physics now. And breaking through this mental barrier requires we think differently.

          For me, this starts with a 'non-quantum' view and derivation of Planck's formula for blackbody radiation. My mathematical derivation of Planck's formula does not use 'energy quanta' but simple continuous processes. Eric Reiter in his essay, "A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory", has presented experimental evidence for this. He needs our support!

          Eckard, can you please comment on my mathematical derivations at the Endnotes of my essay? ( "The Metaphysics of Physics"). Specifically, 1) Planck's formula, 2) The Law of Inertia, 3) de Broglie equations with freguency and wavelength being any real number positive or negative, 4) "if the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave" 5) my explanation of CSL in my reply to Pentcho under my essay.

          Fondly,

          Constantinos

          P.S. Have you rated my essay yet? Please do! I am hovering between 'being and nothingness' !!!

          • [deleted]

          • Post #151

          Dear Eckard,

          I read your essay with interest. I too take an approach, without regard to the conventional notion of time. In fact my attempt is to extend the principles of TD to the rest of physics with a timeless Geometric approach. It concerns very simple Geometric relationships leading to trignometric expressions between inter-related phenomena. It makes relativistic phenomena quite understandable visually. I am sure you would like my essay

          The gist of my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

          1. It identifies the PRIMORDIAL Foundational Problems in Newtonian Mechanics (NM) that runs through ALL BRANCHES OF PHYSICS. (Please see the short attachment "Primordial Foundational Problems").

          2. It eliminates the problematic concept of POINT-MASS (common to NM, QM, SRT) to allow internal structure for a particle. This in turn enables to resolve the other interconnected primordial problems.

          3. The result: By taking these two steps, ALL THE EQUATIONS OF SRT are DYNAMICALLY derived by identifying the trignometric relations within the energy-momentum equation, and by restoring Galileo's principle of relativity. (I request you to have a glance at the attachment - "Geometrodynamics of Energy" to verify this claim). - See also comment by L.B Crowell below.

          4. This achievement will establish that I have not just treated these problems at the level a speculative discussion as in other essays, but that the problems discussed are real problems, by virtue of their solution leading to the unification of NM and SRT (by finding an equation of motion which is equally valid for slow and very fast motions).

          Here is the impartial comment made by Ben Dribus (essayist in no 2 position): "One thing I will say is that it appears as if you made an honest effort to answer the question posed by the essay contest rather than just writing down your favorite ideas about physics. You will notice that I made a similar effort..... I am not sure why it was rated so low, but my impression is that many authors automatically rate other essays low to boost their own standing".

          Here's the comment made by LB Crowell (essayist at no. 20 position): "The calculations I just looked at and they seem alright. ...... Your procedure appears to be some euclideanization of relativity. At the end you arrive at equations which are the same as special relativity".

          In order to enable follow up of your comments easier for me, I request you to reply to this under my essay : http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

          Best regards,

          VirajAttachment #1: 4_Primordial_Foundational_Problems.docAttachment #2: 4_GEOMETRODYNAMICS_OF_ENERGY.doc