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

    Basudeba

    The fact about the physical existence as knowable to us, ie not one we dream up to fit an incorrect presumption, is as follows:

    To independently (from the sensory systems which can detect it) exist in the way it does, means that it occurs definitively. Something cannot physically exist and be in some way not definitive. Actually, since physical existence involves existence and difference, then it is sequence. The sequence comprising definitive discrete physically existent states of whatever comprises it.

    "This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously". Let us assume that this depiction as to how physical existence occurs is correct. Then what is being said is that it occurs, definitively, because how does something fluctuate, have position and momentum, if in each instance there is not a specific physical occurrence? As you say: "The fluctuation exists regardless of whether it is measured or not implying the existence of a universal field". One could ask very simple question here, ie why can't something which is existent have a specific spatial position and momentum, at any given time? Indeed, it must have, otherwise it could not exist.

    "The inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed"

    Although there is an incorrect presumption that there is some form of indefiniteness in physical existence, this is where it all really goes wrong. Measurement/observation /etc cannot have any affect on physical existence because it has already occurred. "whereas the unavoidable disturbance in measurement process had been ignored". Incorrect. You do not disturb anything. It has already happened, furthermore, the physical interaction did not involve what happened anyway, but a physically existent representation thereof. In the case of sight this is light. Neither can you affect the future, because it does not physically exist. All that happens is that a different subsequent physically existent state occurs from the one which would have occurred had different circumstances obtained.

    "While the particles and bodies are constantly changing their alignment within their confinement". "The elementary particles have intrinsic spin and angular momentum which continually change their state internally". "Each particle/body acts as one indivisible dimensional system".

    Now, whether these statements are true or not is irrelevant to the point that they all, correctly, refer to definitive states. Something happened. Then you say: "This is a universal phenomenon that creates the uncertainty because the internal dynamics of the fields that create the perturbations are not always known to us". Exactly. Physical existence occurred, definitively, the problem, irrespective as to whether this particular depiction of how it occurs is correct or not, is in our ability to identify what is happening at the 'bottom line'. "The time evolution of all systems takes place in a continuous chain of discreet steps". Exactly, physical existence is a sequence of discrete physically existent states. Just as a point of detail, time is the rate of turnover in these states, only one in the sequence can exist at a time. And what is involved here is so vanishingly small in terms of degree of alteration and duration, that we can never differentiate it experimentally.

    "Imagine an observer and a system to be observed..."

    All this is irrelevant, because observation, or any other form of sensing, cannot affect the physical circumstance.

    Paul

    Basudeba

    The point about primary was that the something, whatever it is, is what is physically existent. Whereas the representation, ie information thereon, may or may not be. The word fundamental also refers to being physically existent.

    You may want to phrase those paras differently, but knowledge and perception are fundamentally the same. The issue is the degree to which any given depiction of physical existence corresponds with what is knowable (ie physical existence as manifest to us).

    "Your description of received physical information is somewhat confusing"

    There is a waste basket to my left, and a brick wall to my right. Light emanating from it is reaching my eyes, mouth and the brick wall. The latter two just cannot subsequently process the physical information that is available in that interaction. The subsequent processing of this is irrelevant to the physical circumstance.

    As you identified, paras 18/19 are a consequence of the fact that existence occurs in discrete states, in sequence. So conceptualising distance in terms of duration is wrong, because other than at the same given time, the existence of either of what is involved could have altered.

    "A wave, by definition, is continuous. A particle is discrete"

    Not so. Nothing is continuous in physical existence, otherwise it would be the same physically existent state ad infinitum. A wave is a sequence of discrete states. What is 'continuous' is the alteration in the physical state.

    Re Einstein, there is the first paras of another paper posted in response to some comments about Einstein above (me 24/4 04.19) . Whether length alteration actually occurs is an open question. The importance of it was that it triggered a mind set about a variance in physical existence, which does not exist, and was then explained by other factors anyway. His mistake in understanding timing is fundamental, and despite his words, there is no observation. "Einstein uses a privileged frame of reference to define synchronization". No he does not. He thinks he needs another layer of time to bring 'local time' to 'common time', not realising that timing devices are referencing a common standard, otherwise the system is useless. That is why timing devices are synchronised. Please read that post, before I comment further, though thank you for your extensive comments.

    Paul

    Dear Sir,

    Regarding your comment to our statement: "Your description of received physical information is somewhat confusing", please note that information is the result of measurement and measurement is a comparison between similars. The field set up by our eyes is similar to the field set up by the light emitted by the object. Hence they are perceptible only to the eyes and not to the face or the wall. This is the physical circumstance.

    Whether space and time are continuous or not? If you say they are digital, then how are they connected to make themselves meaningful? If something connects them, that thing fills the interval. The interval itself is space and time. Thus, they have to be continuous. Similarly, the road we walk on is continuous. Though it terminates at some perceivable point, its continuity within the boundary is not disputed. On the contrary, a car running on the road is discrete with reference to the road, though you may say within its boundary it is also continuous.

    It is true that in a wave there is a continuous alteration of the water surface. But the water surface is not the wave. It is stationary. Only the momentum is transferred to the next position. What is transferred is continuous.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Sir,

    We agree with your definition of sequence that it is caused by existence and difference. But it needs further clarification. Sequence involves action or events induced by action. Even in the space of sequence in space, we perceive one position and then perceive the next position and continue such action at least several times. Since existence itself involves continuous change, you are right. Your subsequent observation is in line with this statement.

    We did not presume that there is indefiniteness in physical existence or that measurement process disturbed the object. We only said that all that exists and all effects that influence the outcome of measurement may not be perceptible to us. In fact, we perceive the result of measurement only at "here-now", though the measurement was conducted a little in the past and the present state of the object is not as reported by the measurement. Similarly, other effect like a disturbance to the field through which the light pulse travels, etc, cannot be factored into the result of measurement. Still we use that result. This induces the indefiniteness in perception. Regarding the rest, we are talking about the same thing in different languages.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Basudeba

    "please note that information is the result of measurement"

    Not necessarily. Light, etc, is inherently information, as it is a representation of something else. It does not need to be measured to be so. Neither is the generation of information solely confined to the activity known as measurement. Any judgement/statement/perception/whatever involves comparison to identify difference. The question as to whether the resulting information is correct or not, ie in correspondence with reality, is another matter.

    "The field set up by our eyes is similar to the field set up by the light emitted by the object. Hence they are perceptible only to the eyes and not to the face or the wall. This is the physical circumstance"

    Not so. How your eye receives the light, and then thereafter, is irrelevant. The physical circumstance is what is received. A brick in the same spatial position at the same time, ie instead of the eye, would receive the same light, it have just not got the necessary ability to process what is received. Light does not anticipate what it is going to come into contact with, neither does it only travel to entities which are capable of processing it if received. Reception is purely a function of being in the line of travel of.

    "Whether space and time are continuous or not? If you say they are digital, then how are they connected to make themselves meaningful?

    You have not understood what I have said. First it is not time and space, but physical existence. Second, physical existence, while it exists (ie is 'digital', but better words are discrete and definitive) is not continuous. Otherwise it would be one physically existent state ad infinitum, which it obviously is not. What is 'continuous' is the process of alteration whereby a different state occurs, which supersedes the previous one. It is sequence, with only one state in existence at a time. Look at that bush in your garden. There are visible changes to it. Put it under an electron microscope and more are revealed, etc. So what is ultimately happening? Answer: what we call bush is a sequence of physically existent states of whatever comprises it. There is only one at a time. The bush of one size, colour, leaves/berries on, etc, does not co-exist with the bush that is different, and that applies at the elementary level, not just at the level of what we can discern. What causes the alteration is another matter.

    "If something connects them, that thing fills the interval. The interval itself is space and time"

    Not so. There is no 'something connecting them'. Space is what is required to 'accommodate' any given physical entity, or distance is the difference between entities in terms of spatial position. These entities having to be physically existent states which are existent at the same time, because there cannot be a spatial difference between something and something else which does not exist. Time is concerned with the duration of turnover, ie the rate of change in reality.

    "Similarly, the road we walk on is continuous"

    Not so. We conceptualise existence at a much higher level than what occurs. That is, we conceive of things in terms of superficial physical attributes. And so long as those pertain, we deem the thing to persist in existence. Indeed, we even contradict that, since if an attribute alters, then we say the thing has changed. Which is a contradiction because it is no longer the thing, it is something different. And at the existential level, ie not the superficial categorisation, existence is constantly altering in many different ways. In other words, the concept of 'object' is ontologically incorrect. That car and that road are different physically existent states of something at different times. They just look the same thing at a superficial level.

    Whether the wave comprises something which of itself alters position, or whether there is something else which transfers something, is irrelevant. My point was that the concept of wave involves different physically existent states over time.

    Paul

    Basudeba

    "Sequence involves action or events induced by action"

    Obviously, and I did not say otherwise. Now, there are two possibilities: 1 There is some form(s) of inert substance which has properties which cause alteration thereto. 2 What we conceive of as 'properties' are in fact what exists as the substance. Certainly there must be something which has physical presence, and there must be something which causes alteration. Any given reality is something in a discrete definitive physically existent state.

    "Even in the space of sequence in space"

    Space, as in spatial position, is non-existent in the sense that for there to be spatial entities, this just implies that there must be 'space' (emptiness) for them. Space in the sense of 'not ordinary matter' is just something existent which is different, and therefore the rules of existence apply.

    "we perceive one position and then perceive the next position"

    What we are doing when discerning spatial position is invoking a conceptual spatial matrix, which is located with respect to one entity. We then compare and identify difference. Since we do not recognise alteration, we do this over time, ie compare with entities which are not in existence at the same time, which is wrong.

    "We did not presume that there is indefiniteness in physical existence or that measurement process disturbed the object. We only said that all that exists and all effects that influence the outcome of measurement may not be perceptible to us"

    This may be what QM and relativity would like to think it is saying, but in effect it is reifying indefiniteness. Einstein, for example, never said such overtly, though he got very close (see quote below), but, because he failed to understand how timing works, and conflated reality and the light representation thereof, neither of which he realised. In effect, he reified a time differential which does occur, in the timing of the receipt of light to different observers, to being a feature which is an inherent characteristic of existence, which it is not. QM does the same. What is actually a problem with discerning any given physically existent state, becomes effectively the function of a characteristic of existence, with false notions such as the physical circumstance is alterable by measurement/observation, or it does not exist in one definitive form. If both these theories were as you suggest, ie accepting that existence is independent and definitive, but we just have practical issues discerning what occurred, then they would be completely different.

    Einstein para 4 section 9 1916

    "Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, ie that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in section 7) disappears".

    Paul

    Dear Sir,

    Light is only instrumental in revealing some information. You see objects through the light they emit or reflect. Have you seen light proper - without any object revealed by it? You are right that "Any judgment/statement/perception/whatever involves comparison to identify difference". But compared with what? It has to be result of previous measurement.

    Regarding why eye sees and brick not, you are repeating our argument "it have just not got the necessary ability to process what is received". However, "Reception is purely a function of being in the line of travel of", is incomplete. If not in line, it will not be able to reach the position for interaction. But the suitability for interaction is judged by similarity of function.

    Regarding continuity and discreteness, we think we are talking about the same thing in different ways. In fact both space and time are used as physical objects also through measurement (we can measure only physical objects). But we think it will be better to describe the background structure as the analog part and your physical objects as the digital or discrete part. Viewed in this way, our positions are identical.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Hello Paul,

    Catching up on the essays. Your essay very philosophical and the numbered paragraph style resembles Aristotle's in his Physics and Metaphysics.

    - You ask in paragraph 34, what should be considered to constitute 'it'?

    See Leibniz's Monadology, http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/leibmona.pdf, also quoted in my essay, On the road not taken.

    - Then in paragraph 35, As physical existence is existential sequence and can only occur in ONE definitive form at a time... From this can be inferred that at other times there can be a change of state. Leibniz like the Pythagoreans believed all that was needed was 0 and 1 which are numbers but representative of definite states. To Leibniz, he identified 1 with God, and 0 with nothing. But it is really simpler for 1 to represent an extended, non-zero geometric point.

    If you are interested you can also check out this blog, http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2013/05/dropping-in-on-gottfried-leibniz/

    Regards.

    *One question to ponder since you say you have more free time to contemplate things: Euclid says a 'line' is a length without breadth... is this a realistic definition for something real?

      Basudeba

      "Light is only instrumental in revealing some information"

      Obviously. Indeed, not only is it revealing one form of information, because it has physical properties, it is revealing that in a particular way. All of which I say, so what is your point?

      "Have you seen light proper - without any object revealed by it?"

      What is the point of this question? Light is obviously an existent physical effect. What any given light happens to be a representation of is irrelevant.

      "However, "Reception is purely a function of being in the line of travel of", is incomplete"

      Not so. Either any given light encounters something which alters the configuration of that light, or it does not. What it encounters is irrelevant.

      "Viewed in this way, our positions are identical"

      No they are not, and neither is it a matter of viewing things in a particular way. The only appropriate 'way' is with correspondence to 'what is'. And you write of "background structure as the analog part and your physical objects as the digital or discrete part", which is not what happens.

      Paul

      Akinbo

      No it is not philosophical, it is a generic statement of the physical circumstances.

      Para 34 is an occasion where the generic goes no further and there is a question as to what actually constitutes 'it'. Which is for physicists to find out. The point being that what manifests is the physically existent state of 'something'. But that could either be an inert substance which has the properties which alter, or the something could just be the properties (excuse the terminology, but what I mean should be easy to understand).

      "From this can be inferred that at other times there can be a change of state"

      Really the logic is the other way around. We know there is difference, physical existence is most definitely just in one physical state ad infinitum! So, the question is how does difference reconcile with existence, which necessitates one definitive state. And the answer is sequence. Physical existence is a sequence of definitive discrete physically existent states of whatever comprises it, that is, reality is one physically existent states at any given time. More than one d not co-exist, neither does existence involve any form of indefiniteness.

      Re line, this cannot be so. To be a 'line' it must have 'breadth'. This is of course where representational devices can create problems if they do not reflect what occurs.

      Incidentally, I note for some strange reason I have not read your essay. Will do so later

      Paul

      I have read your paper. After struggling with your unusual way of thinking I begin to understand your approach - and I think you are right, at least with respect of the differentiation reality from its light based representation.

      In his book "Relativity and Common Sense" Hermann Bondi celebrates the unity of dynamics and optics given by Special Relativity, in particular by the Principle of Relativity, as a great advantage, but just by this unity a wrong understanding of the constant of c was established. The speed of light c was indeed cutted from its fundamental optical root.

      I am convinced that the constant of c is of dual nature like light itself! In other words, the speed of light is given twice: in a wave-like version and in a particle-like version. In special relativity ony the wave-like version (i.e. the second postulate) has been taken into account. Special relativity is thus highly incomplete.

      The differentiation between reality (dynamics) and light (optics) is thus a necessary condition to recognize this incompleteness of special relativity.

        Helmut

        There are two main strands of response to your post:

        1 What is SR

        SR is not 1905. SR, as defined by Einstein later, involves:

        -only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary

        -only fixed shape bodies at rest

        -only light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed

        It is special because there is no gravitational force (or more precisely, no differential in the gravitational forces incurred). In other words, it is a purely conceptual circumstance which Einstein invoked to , as far as he saw it, resolve a contradiction, ie rate of change and light speed. Note the phrase "only apparently irreconcilable" when introducing the two postulates in 1905. An amazing caveat. Here is a new theory which only rests on two apparently non controversial postulates, and yet the author has to note that they might appear to be contradictory. Furthermore, in 1905 he does not explain why. That just gets 'resolved' with SR, a meaningless concept because it is not of the real world, and then he moves on to GR, the real world, where there is gravitational force.

        The point of my rambling here, is that the issue is not with SR, forget it, the issue is with the concept of relativity. And probably the best statement on this is:

        Einstein para 4 section 9 1916

        "Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, ie that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in section 7) disappears".

        This is nonsense. Every instance of existence does not have its own time which needs referencing to some other time. Things either occur at the same time or they do not. What does vary is the receipt of light from that same occurrence by different observers, which depends, fundamentally on spatial relationships.

        2 Interrelated to this is the point that Einstein did not have any observational light, so he had no observers because there was nothing to observe. His notion of frame of reference is, whether he meant it or not, therefore just a reference against which to calibrate something else. His light is just a ray of light, which is used as a constant in order to calibrate distance and time, it could have been any constant. It has nothing to do with observation.

        The point here being that his second postulate as defined is irrelevant, because he did not deploy it as defined. So this effort tha has been put into resolving rate of change and light speed is a wild goose chase, the issue never existed

        [Note: in response to some earlier comments about Einstein I put up a post which is the first 24 paras of another paper, see above my post 24/4 04.19)

        Paul

        5 days later

        Paul,

        Well done. A clearer more rational essay than last year, although it did often seem to be largely a re-iteration of the same fundamental points.

        None the less I think it showed some better understanding in some areas, including in particular;

        "all that can be defined is A, from within A," I might add for full implications; "once the signal has interacted with and is is propagating 'within' A." which clarifies the point that what the brain receives it the signal AFTER the interaction with the lens, which as you say, has CHANGED. ("The phenomena involved in capturing and transmitting these representations have physical properties which influence (it)") So the brain has no direct access to the state of the signal before the interaction. you don't say that specifically but it is implicit and will prove more important than most realise.

        I think a very important point, equivalent to my own, is; "...when relative distance is altering (ie there is changing relative movement, which involves alteration in relative spatial position), then the perceived (ie received) rate of change alters. Because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which the distances are altering."

        However. You don't identify that there are TOW cases, the 'accelerative' one you refer to, but also the simpler but crucial 'inertial one' (no change of speed involved). i.e. If a submarine does a constant v towards an EM wave sequence propagating under water (at 200,000m/sec) the waves once detected and passing through the channel to the processor, also at a constant speed, will be closer together by v/t. if receding, the wavelength will be longer. (This is precisely what is found of course). That change to wavelength is however oft forgotten, i.e. by Pentcho for one, when considering the process as the Doppler shift mechanism, which is precisely what it is.

        Where you are spot on is the 'optical illusion'. This then extends to 'apparent speed' c+v, where all propagation speeds locally are c or c/n but there is no bar on the 'illusion' of c+v, or some change due to acceleration.

        Well done. I hope you do better this year.

        Peter

          Peter

          Your addition is pointless, that was about the existentially closed system.

          What happens in the brain is irrelevant to the physical circumstance. The physics stops at the point of interaction, whether it is with a brick wall or an eye. What we need to know, is what was received.

          Your next reference is to the first point I posted on NPA. There are not 2 cases. Either there is relative movement in which case...as stated. Or there is not relative movement, in which case the rate of change remains constant for the recipient observer and the same as the reality (leaving aside other possible 'interferences' on light as it travels). Neither is this about the overall speed of travel, but is concerned with rate of change.

          Again I am not enjoying this. The contest opened just when I had time to write something. And as I do not sleep well, it gives me something to do in the early hours of the morning, before I then go out and crawl all over my new camper van (the last one got stolen). Or otherwise go to Muswell Hill to renovate my son's new flat. But I must find a different pursuit.

          Paul

          Paul,

          Arbitrarily deciding where physics starts and stops is an interesting new approach, but it only seems to be a belief system you've built as it conflicts with observation and seems to have no scientific basis.

          You are suggesting that there is no refraction by a lens, or at least that when we look through a telescope or microscope we will never 'see' anything because the physics has 'stopped' at the surface of the lens! This is completely contrary to all contemporary optical science. That view entirely missing the relevance of the process of refraction, which changes the speed of the signal to c/n ONLY in the frame of the eye lens.

          Are you seriously suggesting an instrument with a lens moving at 0.2 c 'towards' a light source will "see" precisely the same spectroscopy as an adjacent lens moving 'away from' the source? If so you are missing a whole tract of fundamental A level science needed to even get INTO a college course! That is not to say that many at college are not indoctrinated with inconsistent theory, but it does however explain the inconsistencies in your comments.

          Also 'rate of change' only comes from acceleration of course, not relative motion per se. If you read what you wrote you will see the apparent confusion there too.

          I think you may enjoy this more if you did a little more research late at night before rushing too rapidly into writing. I spent over 40 years untangling the deep mess of complexities before a broad consistent ontology started to emerge, then more checking it's predictions before I published my first paper.

          Peter

          Peter

          It is neither arbitrary, not a belief system. Though do note that it is 'only' a generic statement.

          As stated previously, but for convenience, I will repeat it here. The physical existence we are investigating is all that is potentially knowable to us (ie what we can be aware of because we can either experience it directly or can hypothesise it, which is, in effect, virtual sensing). Whether we can get to know all that is potentially available is another, secondary matter, the point is potentiality, as opposed to no potentiality. Knowability being enabled by a physical process, which involves the receipt of physical input. Which means that we are enabled to be aware of what may only be one particular form of existence, but as we cannot know (experience) an alternative this is irrelevant (hypothesis just being virtual sensing, ie it operates within the rules of sensing enabling us to state what we could have been able to sense had identifiable issues not prevented it. It is not a means of invoking which are beyond our existence). We cannot transcend our existence; we are trapped in an existentially closed system, which has as if determinant a physical process.

          Now the key point here is that, therefore, physical existence is a confined, definitive circumstance. Which is why I can say I have no beliefs because my reference (context) is to physical existence as knowable to us, not some array of possible alternatives which we cannot know. It is meaningless to judge any comment against a possible alternative that we cannot know, just in the same way that it is not science to invoke such an alternative possibility. We can only attempt to explain the potentially knowable.

          So, we know two key points about existence:

          -it occurs independently of the mechanisms which enable its awareness, and occurrence must involve definitiveness

          -comparison of inputs indicates that there is alteration, ie it occurs differently, but must be definitive in each case

          This apparent dichotomy is resolved by sequence. Physical existence must be a sequence of definitive, discrete physically existent states of whatever comprises it. The important point to realise here is that objects do not exist as we conceptualise them. They are existent as a sequence of physically existent states, each one being reality at the time it occurs (there is no time in reality, only space). There just appears to be an object which persists over time, because we are defining object on the basis of superficial physical characteristics. We know there is alteration in objects, so just follow the logic through to its conclusion. Then think of sequence as 'tick'.

          So, we cannot make pronouncements about occurrences outwith our existence (we have to accept the physical circumstance we are in) and the physical circumstance 'stops' with the interaction at the eye, it has nothing to do with any of the subsequent processing. I am not suggesting there is "no refraction by a lens", or whatever. This is just detail of no consequence in a generic definition. It is sufficient to say there is an interaction, in principle the same as that which occurs with a brick. The difference is that the eye/lens/whatever, is the front end of a system which can utilise the input rendered by the interaction, the brick cannot. Neither does it conflict with observation, again, in generic terms, it is sufficient to state that this involves the receipt of a physical input (known as light).

          Rate of change does not only come from acceleration. Rate of change is the proper term for time, the frequency at which alteration is occurring (reality turnover rate). Again, for the generic explanation, forget all the detail about how light works, how it interrelates to what occurred, etc. The point is that there is a rate of alteration, a tick. Einstein used ageing, hand waving would have been better. Now, it does not matter if this rate is constant, slowing/increasing. It is the relative spatial relationship which matters (leaving other possible influences on light aside). Because if that spatial difference is altering, then the time taken for each 'tick', as represented by light, to reach the observer will alter. But the tick is whatever the tick is, in reality. It is not altering in the way that it appears to do so courtesy of an optical illusion. The fact (if true) that within 'each individual frame' (whatever that is) that the speed of light always calibrates to the same number, is irrelevant. What is relevant is the duration incurred from occurrence and creation of light, to receipt of light. During which time, the recipient wrt occurrence could have altered relative position. It is also irrelevant to the problem with relativity, because there is no observational light in relativity theory.

          Paul

          17 days later