The Fundamental Assumption That Is Wrong Is the Basic Concept That a Stationary Frame of Reference Can Be Used To Understand a Universe of Motion by Gerry Klein

Gerry,

In your essay you say that Einstein in his interpretation of observed results of experiments such as the Michelson‐Morley experiment which proved there is no objective stationary frame of reference used the stationary frame of reference subjectively to explain an experiment that just proved objectively is non‐existent. Your conclusion is that the Stationary Frame of Reference is the most fundamental assumption that is wrong at the foundation of Physics.

But what do you think about such Stationary Frame of Reference in which all the fluxes of gravitons are equal in all directions? In the Frame any body can be really in rest. See also Extended special theory of relativity .

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Response to Sergey

Sergey,

Thanks for your comment, you identified exactly what I have tried to say in my essay.

I cannot do the same. There is a huge gulf between my reading your Essay and understanding it and the work you have done. I do not have the background. That said I sense a similarity of thought back of it to my own that caused you to want to know in the first place what is really happening in this Universe.

Yes I can see that equal in all directions makes for the appearance of stationary.

And when you say, In the Frame any body can be really at rest. Yes I agree, but for me it is a relative rest, for it's linked to a closed system as in the way my car is parked outside my house and it certainly is not moving relative to my house, or the earth. Yet the earth and my house and car are moving at 19 miles per second around the sun. This knowledge is not necessary in order to drive my car or live in my house yet it is crucial for understanding the situation the farther away such a situation is from my limited world. Such as the movement of galaxies or subatomic particles. When you are attempting to comprehend the movement of galaxies, and subatomic particles at a fundamental level the absolute motion of the speed of light because it is independent of the motion of objects can be used to understand all relative motion of the physical objects involved.

I am not convinced that the concept of an infinite Something Physical as a real existent is possible. I can consider the idea of infinity to be explored theoretically within the mind to that extent infinity is real in our consciousness as is the idea of the stationary frame of reference. As to an infinity that is real in the physical universe I can say nothing itself is infinite, as everything in the universe has its pair of opposites. All opposites are identical in nature and differ only in degree. Physical things are always finite, no-thing, nothing may be infinite. Thus we have in the Universe something that is really existing and nothing that is also really existing. What possible connection between nothing and something could result in both being just different degrees of the same entity?

Motion itself, motion prior to objects moving, that is the entity that is the connecting link between something and nothing for something is created by the motion of nothing. The motion of an ongoing progression of space and time, a scalar motion according to the formula v=s/t evolves the space aspect of itself into physical matter and the time aspect of itself into consciousness within the same location. This evolution as each stage is reached passes to a higher level of complexity wherein the same natural internal law results in new manifested phenomena. Hierarchical nesting of matter yes I agree, I just don't see it as infinite.

This is the beauty of the moving frame of reference for motion is both the cause and effect of itself when it is the motion of nothing. With the stationary frame of reference there is by definition no motion so that the motion of anything we see moving has to have its motion created by a source outside of the frame of reference we are using to understand the motion of objects. We have been quite comfortable for a long time with the idea of a nothing that does not move, the stationary frame of reference so its opposite, (everything, no-thing in the universe has its opposite) a moving nothing the space-time progression may take time to accept.

As much as the speed of light is c in the stationary frame of reference, in the moving frame of reference it becomes one unit of space combined with one unit of time to give, create, one unit of motion.

The motion we see incorrectly is the result of giving the motion we partake in, observe to some other source, like giving the motion of the rotating earth to the sun and then erroneously claiming that it is really moving relative to the earth, this is the result of seeing only relative motion or rather being only able to see relative motion for the absolute motion that should be available to explain relative motion is really the space and time progression of NOTHING moving outward from all locations whether occupied or not at c the speed of light. And how do you explain that concept. The motion that really exists is a motion you do not see or objectively sense because again it is the movement of nothing. If you take an expanding balloon and placing an X on its surface and then placing that X on the surface of a desk so that the X spot relative to the desk appears stationary you have not in the least changed the movement of any other spots marked on the surface of the inflating balloon but by effectively making the X spot appear stationary from your viewpoint you have unknowingly then given its motion, which is intrinsically away from all other spots on the balloon, an equal portion of its motion to all the other spots.

For further explanation please my essay submitted for the 2008 contest

The Foundation of Physics and the Explanation of Time

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/388

Dear Gerry Klein,

With reference to Dirac's essay abstract note, your argument on 'Frame of reference' is much realistic, in that infinite frames of references back in time without beginning indicates that 'Dimensionality' does not have any beginning.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Dear Gerry Klein,

You have raised some deep misconceptions regarding 'motion' and the 'measure of motion'. I agree with you the current fundamental assumption stands in the way of correctly understanding our Universe. And this has created much confusion and many paradoxes and extreme theories to mask over these.

Though the measure of motion requires a 'stationary background' to reference the change in position of the moving object - what you call "Stationary Frame of Reference" - motion 'in itself' does not. While the 'measurement of motion' is 'relative' to the stationary reference frame, motion of an object in itself is 'absolute'. Were we to take the 'empty space' an object occupies as the reference frame - what I believe you call "Moving Frame of Reference" - we would measure the 'absolute motion' of an object relative to the frame of the space it occupies as always being constant! That is to say, "all physical objects are at rest relative to the physical space they occupy". Thus, Einstein replaces Newton's 'absolute frame of reference' with 'absolute CSL'. But if we consider that Newton's 'absolute space' is the 'space an object occupies' then both of these notions are equivalent.

Please read and rate my essay, "The Metaphysics of Physics", and support my efforts (as I have yours) for greater recognition by the physics community of new insights and ideas we both agree on.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Reply to Sergey Fedosin;

Thank you for your support. I also support you. We are both pointed in the same correct direction and there are not many who are aware of what exactly is the correct direction. And may I say anyone who responds to either my explanation or yours or others like ours is also potentially on the correct path to a theory that accurately reflects the reality we experience. This for the simple reason that no one can meaningfuly respond if they have not, if they did not over a period of time by their intense thinking realize that something is very wrong with the conventional explanation that either science or religion presents.

thank you

Gerry Klein

Constantinos;

You are correct, physics is based on metaphysical assumptions of which the "physics community" is totally unaware because they have been so quick to pay homage to their teachers that they forgot to demand that the "teachers" must, have to prove out the fundamental assumptions of which they are unaware of and have accepted from their "teachers". For like the "students" the generation before them as the present teachers have never seriously questioned the fundamental assumption as they both have incorrectly assumed the foundation at this stage must be correct. The foundation of thought that is the starting point of all philosophies, science, and or religion is absolutely wrong. For how else could you explain the uselessness of all 3 to solve the present problems of the human race.

Gerry Klein

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

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Gerry,

Your judgment is excellent. I like your principles, despite I am not yet study your work in details. Please you just check mine work (it actually is a introduction part of mine article). I am so hope it will by your heart and you will help me with your apprise (So sorry. The time is pressing). We will continue after, as I hope.

link Essay

Best wishes to you