Dear Sir,
We thoroughly enjoyed your essay subject to some different modes of presentation. Something can be fundamental or not. There can be many things that are individually fundamental. But how can something be more fundamental than others? You are right that information must be a representation of something, but how can you say that the "something is primary". However, we note that your definition of information can be used to define reality. Very few scientists now-a-days give precise definitions.
We agree with the contents of your para 2 to 5 and 8. But we would like to phrase it differently. Knowledge is the perception of the result of measurement and measurement is a comparison between similars. Perception involves comparison of impulses received from an object with a previous such experience, which exists in the memory as a concept and which can be expressed as information through words that are understood by others. Thus, both reality and information require existence of objects that is perceptible to human sense organs, their identfiability with a concept and their expressibility through human language - all three being invariant under similar conditions subject to the fundamental nature of the physical world.
Your para 6 and 7 indirectly define the number system. Number is a characteristic of all objects by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Many can be 2,3,....n depending the step-by-step perception. If something is not A, then it belongs to a different class that exists (out of many) or A is physically absent at "here-now".
Your description of received physical information is somewhat confusing. Perception is the processing of the result of measurements of different but related fields of something with some stored data to convey a combined form "it is like that", where "it" refers to an object (constituted of bits) and "that" refers to a concept signified by the object (self-contained representation). Measurement returns restricted information related to only one field at a time. To understand all aspects, we have to take multiple readings of all aspects. Hence in addition to encryption (language phrased in terms of algorithms executed on certain computing machines - sequence of symbols), compression (quantification and reduction of complexity - grammar) and data transmission (sound, signals), there is a necessity of mixing information (mass of text, volume of intermediate data, time over which such process will be executed) related to different aspects (readings generated from different fields), with a common code (data structure - strings) to bring it to a format "it is like that".
Para 18 and 19 are very interesting. Distance means the interval between two objects that are sequentially arranged in an ordered manner. In this description, the objects occupy specific positions, which means no motion. Hence v here will be zero and your interpretation is valid. Time arises also out of ordered sequence, but of events, which means changes in objects. This implies application of energy, which may lead to displacement or partial displacement or transformation or transmutation.
The nature of light in modern times has been full of confusion. A wave, by definition, is continuous. A particle is discrete. Hence something can be described both as a wave and a particle only at a point - the interface of two waves. The photon consists of two standing waves of force - one an expansive electro force and the other the contractive magnetic force. When these waves intersect each other perpendicularly, it is called an electromagnetic particle. The particle vanishes as the forces separate in their continuation as standing waves. Photon is the locus of this interface in a direction perpendicular to both. Hence it is called the carrier of e.m. energy and has no rest mass. A wave always requires a medium. Since density plays an important role in momentum transfer and since density of space is the minimum, the velocity of photon in space is maximum.
Regarding Einstein, there is a great degree of misinformation. The concept of measurement has undergone a big change over the last century leading to changes in "mathematics of physics". It all began with the problem of measuring the length of a moving rod. Two possibilities of measurement suggested by Mr. Einstein in his 1905 paper were:
(a) "The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest", or
(b) "By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a clock in the moving frame, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is the length of the rod"
The method described at (b) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).
Here also we are reminded of an anecdote relating to a famous scientist, who once directed two of his students to precisely measure the wave-length of sodium light. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the normally accepted value and the other a different value. Upon enquiry, the other student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the accepted value, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, for precision measurement he applied length contraction to the scale treating the star Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. The scientist told him to treat the scale and the object to be measured as moving with the same velocity and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of sodium light is infinite. To a surprised scientist, they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of sodium light!
Some scientists we have come across try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of motion. They claim that if we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of motion, then there will be no length contraction. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding the rod in a transverse direction. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference because the length contraction, if real, will be in the same proportion for both.
The fallacy in the above description is that if one treats "as if all three were at rest", one cannot measure velocity or momentum, as the object will be relatively as rest, which means zero relative velocity. Either Mr. Einstein missed this point or he was clever enough to camouflage this, when, in his 1905 paper, he said: "Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks". But is this the velocity of k as measured from k, or is it the velocity as measured from K? This question is extremely crucial. K and k each have their own clocks and measuring rods, which are not treated as equivalent by Mr. Einstein. Therefore, according to his theory, the velocity will be measured by each differently. In fact, they will measure the velocity of k differently. But Mr. Einstein does not assign the velocity specifically to either system. Everyone missed it and all are misled. His spinning disk example in GR also falls for the same reason.
Einstein uses a privileged frame of reference to define synchronization and then denies the existence of any privileged frame of reference. We quote from his 1905 paper on the definition of synchronization: "Let a ray of light start at the "A time" tA from A towards B, let it at the "B time" tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" t'A. In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: tB - tA = t'A - tB."
"We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:--
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other."
The concept of relativity is valid only between two objects. Introduction of a third object brings in the concept of privileged frame of reference and all equations of relativity fall. Yet, Mr. Einstein precisely does the same while claiming the very opposite. In the above description, the clock at A is treated as a privileged frame of reference for proving synchronization of the clocks at B and C. Yet, he claims it is relative!
The cornerstone of GR is the principle of equivalence. It has been generally accepted without much questioning. Equivalence is not a first principle of physics, as is often stated, but merely an ad hoc metaphysical concept designed to induce the uninitiated to imagine that gravity has magical non-local powers of infinite reach. The appeal to believe in such a miraculous form of gravity is very strong. Virtually everyone, and especially physicists, accept Equivalence as an article of faith even though it has never been positively verified by either experimental or observational physics. All of the many experiments and observations show that the equivalence of gravity and inertia simply does not exist. If we analyze the concept scientifically, we find a situation akin to the Russell's paradox of Set theory, which raises an interesting question: If S is the set of all sets which do not have themselves as a member, is S a member of itself? The general principle (discussed in our book Vaidic Theory of Numbers) is that: there cannot be many without one, meaning there cannot be a set without individual elements (example: a library - collection of books - cannot exist without individual books). In one there cannot be many, implying, there cannot be a set of one element or a set of one element is superfluous (example: a book is not a library) - they would be individual members unrelated to each other as is a necessary condition of a set. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, a collection of objects is either a set with its elements, or individual objects that are not the elements of a set.
Let us examine set theory and consider the property p(x): x x, which means the defining property p(x) of any element x is such that it does not belong to x. Nothing appears unusual about such a property. Many sets have this property. A library [p(x)] is a collection of books. But a book is not a library [x does not belong to x]. Now, suppose this property defines the set R = {x : x does not belong to x}. It must be possible to determine if R belongs to R or R does not belong to R. However if R belongs to R, then the defining properties of R implies that R does not belong to R, which contradicts the supposition that R belongs to R. Similarly, the supposition R does not belong to R confers on R the right to be an element of R, again leading to a contradiction. The only possible conclusion is that, the property "x does not belong to x" cannot define a set. This idea is also known as the Axiom of Separation in Zermelo-Frankel set theory, which postulates that; "Objects can only be composed of other objects" or "Objects shall not contain themselves".
In order to avoid this paradox, it has to be ensured that a set is not a member of itself. It is convenient to choose a "largest" set in any given context called the universal set and confine the study to the elements of such universal set only. This set may vary in different contexts, but in a given set up, the universal set should be so specified that no occasion arises ever to digress from it. Otherwise, there is every danger of colliding with paradoxes such as the Russell's paradox. Or as it is put in the everyday language: "A man of Serville is shaved by the Barber of Serville if and only if the man does not shave himself?"
There is a similar problem in the theory of General Relativity and the principle of equivalence. Inside a spacecraft in deep space, objects behave like suspended particles in a fluid or like the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Usually, they are relatively stationary in the medium unless some other force acts upon them. This is because of the relative distribution of mass inside the spacecraft and its dimensional volume that determines the average density at each point inside the spacecraft. Further the average density of the local medium of space is factored into in this calculation. The light ray from outside can be related to the space craft only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing both the space emitting light and the spacecraft. If the passengers could observe the scene outside the space-craft, they will notice this difference and know that the space craft is moving. In that case, the reasons for the apparent curvature will be known. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the space craft, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside the space craft. The emission of the ray will be restricted to those emanating from within the spacecraft. In that case, the ray will move straight inside the space craft. In either case, the description of Mr. Einstein is faulty. Thus, both SR and GR including the principles of equivalence are wrong descriptions of reality. Hence all mathematical derivatives built upon these wrong descriptions are also wrong. We will explain all so-called experimental verifications of the SR and GR by alternative mechanisms or other verifiable explanations.
Relativity is an operational concept, but not an existential concept. The equations apply to data and not to particles. When we approach a mountain from a distance, its volume appears to increase. What this means is that the visual perception of volume (scaling up of the angle of incoming radiation) changes at a particular rate. But locally, there is no such impact on the mountain. It exists as it was. The same principle applies to the perception of objects with high velocities. The changing volume is perceived at different times depending upon our relative velocity. If we move fast, it appears earlier. If we move slowly, it appears later. Our differential perception is related to changing angles of radiation and not the changing states of the object. It does not apply to locality. Einstein has also admitted this. But the Standard model treats these as absolute changes that not only change the perceptions, but change the particle also!
We had written too much. Sorry.
Regards,
basudeba
