A Treatise on Foundational Problems of Physics by Viraj Prema Fernando

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Dear Viraj,

As we are both retired we have the time to think (I think).

Spacetime is an illusion, the BB is a thought experiment and inflation a result of it. I think you can agree with that.

If you have somle spare time pls read (and rate) "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION"

Good luck

Wilhelmus

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Viraj,

I think the change of frequency of GPS clocks with altitude is not directly connected with the change of mass of the clocks. In SRT mass and charge are constant since in SRT there is not of acceleration of reference frames. In SRT approximation the Maxwell equation may be rewritten in four-dimensional form. Then if [math]F_{ik}[/math] is electromagnetic tensor, [math]j^k[/math] is 4-current, [math]W^k_i[/math] is stress-energy of electromagnetic field, then electromagnetic 4-force density is: [math]f_i=F_{ik}j^k=- \partial_k W^k_i[/math] From here in contravariant index 4-force is: [math]f^i=(\frac {\mathbf {E} \cdot \mathbf {j}}{c}, \mathbf {f})[/math] Where [math] \mathbf {E}[/math] is electric field strength, [math] \mathbf {j}[/math] is 3-vector of current density, c is the speed of light, [math] \mathbf {f}= \rho_q \mathbf {E}+[\mathbf {j}\times \mathbf {B}] [/math] is 3-vector of force density and [math] \rho_q [/math] is charge density in motion, [math] \mathbf {B}[/math] is magnetic induction. If 4-vector of force multiply with the volume of moving particle taking in account Lorentz contraction of the volume then we find total force applied to the particle by electromagnetic field: [math] \mathbf {F}= q \mathbf {E}+q[\mathbf {V}\times \mathbf {B}] [/math] where q is charge and [math] \mathbf {V} [/math] is velocity of the particle. So for the particle we have 4-vector of force: [math]F^i=(\frac {q \mathbf {E} \cdot \mathbf {V}}{c}, \mathbf {F})[/math] The same picture is for gravitational force in Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation (LITG).

Sergey Fedosin Essay

[deleted]

Dear Sergey,

You wrote: "I think the change of frequency of GPS clocks with altitude is not directly connected with the change of mass of the clocks. In SRT mass and charge are constant since in SRT there is not of acceleration of reference frames".

(1) Contrary to your claim that mass remains constant, is it not the case that SRT's contention is that a mass of a particle INCREASES when in motion? When the energy increases from Mc2 to gamma.Mc2 does not the mass increase from M to gamma.M in SRT?

(2) If mass of a particle does not increase when in motion, how can you explain that in order to set a particle of mass M in motion it requires momentum p = gamma.Mv?

(Note: I have given a different explanation consistent with an energy decrease by factor gamma).

(3) If the energy of a particle increases, is it not counter-intuitive to claim that this results in a slow down of internal processes? Isn't this a contradictory situation?

(4) It is because of this contradictory situation that SRT cannot explain the mechanism of how the internal processes slow down. It only merely "plugs in" data to the time dilation 'factor' to solve problems.

Here is an example: "A very interesting example of the slowing down of time with motion is furnished by mu-mesons ..... THE FACTOR BY WHICH THE TIME IS INCREASED HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN AS 1/(1-u2/c2) ..... We do not know why the meson disintegrates or what the machinery is, but we know its behavior satisfies the principle of relativity. THAT IS THE UTILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY - IT PERMITS US TO MAKE PREDICTIONS, EVEN ABOUT THINGS THAT OTHERWISE WE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT. - Feynman Lectures on Physics , Vol I Ch 15 - 7).

(5) The fact is that I have obtained extremely accurate results for GPS clock time differences a) due to altitude change (energy increase) and b) due to motion (energy decrease).

What you do not seem to understand is that I derive the "time dilation" equation by a GEOMETRICAL THEOREM, in terms of decrease of energy of a particle when in motion. . This formula is the same as SRT's. When I work out this same formula on the basis of energy changes and get very accurate results, I am PROVING THAT MY CORRELATION BETWEEN ENERGY CHANGES AND GEOMETRY IS RIGHT. And in turn it proves that for geometry to be right, that the energy decreases with motion has to be right.

Best regards,

Viraj

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Viraj,

Mass of particle is a constant and is determined with the help of energy E and momentum p: [math] m=\frac {\sqrt {E^2-p^2 c^2}} {c^2}[/math] E and p may be increased under action of force but m is constant. About slow down of internal processes of particle in motion. It is so only in the case if we shall register it with the help of electromagnetic waves with their speed c. If we take another wave with other speed the result will be another. About your geometrical approach. I think it is possible to use geometry for deducing of SRT results. But you must give good explanation at every step.

Sergey Fedosin

[deleted]

Sergey,

In the equation (Mc2)2 (pc)2 = (gamma. Mc2)2

Left hand side represents the initial state before the interaction and the right hand side represents the final state after the interaction. The question is whether the mass remains constant after the interaction.

It is not correct to carry over the term (pc)2 to the other side and mix up the terms of the intial sate and the final state to determine the mass of the final state. In fact what you have done is to say:

"mass of the intial state" = "mass of initial state"

Thanks for letting me know that my geometric approach is workable in your opinion.

Best regards,

Viraj

pjackson

Viraj

We agree about the inherent foundational errors and seemingly most other things. Perhaps we view the world similarly, what kind of boats did you design as a Naval Architect? I trained as an Architect and also worked in fluid dynamics and yacht design. (My own boat recently won the Solent IRC championships overall). Super essay, I agree with almost all, and a good score coming. I felt while reading that I could almost have written it myself, but probably not as clearly.

I decided a while ago that we need "to find ways to explain these phenomena as in terms of states of changes of energy."

I suggest a 'simplest conceivable NON mathematical idea' was yet to be found, and describe one that seems to work very well. It involves kinetics and waves, but as someone used to the dynamics of boats negotiating waves I assume that's not a problem. It's a multi part self build ontological construction with foundations in logic, that seems to me too unify relativity and QM. I'm really interested in your view as to whether you see it as heading 'the right way.'

Very best wishes.

Peter

Sergey Fedosin

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

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

« Previous Page