INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra

Dear Sir,

You are right that "The waves are in a sequence of cause and effect determined by the physics of the circumstance". Everything evolves in that way in a continuing chain of events independent of our observation. But if we look for a particular chain; how to describe it? It has evolved further so that it cannot be described as it was. It is not non-existent, because it still exists in an evolved state unknown to us. The uncertainty is about our knowledge and not its existence. It was perceived at "here-now". It existed before and continues to exist after that in states unknown to us. If we combine its perception over time t' to t'' into one lot, at all other times it existed in an evolving state, but not perceived by us. We cannot differentiate between such states. Hence it has to be described together as a superposition of states. In fact, when it was perceived, it was also in different states, but since these were known, they can be described precisely.

Perception is observation of the observable by the observer. Observation is reporting the state of the observable only. It does not affect the observable. But without observation, the object is meaningless as far as we are concerned. Since perception is comparison of observation to a fixed concept, it has to be time invariant unlike the observable, which is time variant in its temporal evolution. We must note these differences.

The wave does not change the state of the medium; it only passes the momentum to the next position. Hence you are right that it is in a sequence of states.

Regarding your last para, we will quote an anecdote. A famous scientist once directed two of his students to precisely measure the wave-length of sodium light. The students returned with two 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 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 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 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.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Your question shows the depth of your knowledge. Your invitation shows your confidence and quest for truth. Hats off to you Sir! We will try to satisfy you.

Newton said both the apple and the Earth are stationary. Gravity pulls the apple to Earth. This itself is debatable, as nothing can be physically "pulled". It is always a push from the opposite direction. The weakening of the stem could not support the mass of the apple, so that it got free and moved in the direction of least resistance. Einstein also told that both the apple and the Earth are stationary, but he reasoned that the space between the Earth and the apple curved, so that the distance between the Earth and the apple became zero. We wonder, by what mechanism only the space between the Earth and the apple curved leaving all other objects around unaffected!

Einsteinian space-time curvature calculations were based on vacuum, i.e. on a medium without any gravitational properties (since it has no mass). Now if a material medium is considered (which space certainly is), then it will have a profound effect on the space-time geometry as opposed to that in vacuum. It will make the gravitational constant differential for different localities (as seen in the acceleration due to gravity case).

Have you ever wondered the difference between force and energy? Free on-line dictionary defines force as "The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power" in the general category, but changes to "A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application" in the physics category. The same dictionary defines energy as "The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power" and "The capacity of a physical system to do work" in general and physics category respectively. The word "capacity to cause" physical change means, energy in its stored or potential state is force. In its kinetic state (vigorous activity), it is interaction and after it ceases to act, it is action. Though the three are only evolutionary states of the same thing, they are physically different.

Gravity is a "force" that stabilizes orbits between interacting bodies, when both bodies circle around a point called barycenter. If you take the distance from this point to the centers of each body, draw a square of that length and distribute the mass of the two bodies in the reverse field, you will find some interesting results. We leave it to you for working it out so that you can draw your own conclusions. For this reason, gravity is closer to magnetism. Bodies with strong magnetic fields exhibit high gravitation potential also. On the other hand, strong, weak, electromagnetic interactions and radioactive disintegration are caused by "energy". Unlike magnetism or gravity, these are associated with high temperature. Unlike gravity, these four are governed by different combinations of proximity-distance variables (proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance) between the two bodies involved in interaction. Since both belong to different classes, they have not been unified by any of the present day theories. This shows that there is some inherent defect in modern theories that need rectification. (We hold gravity as a composite of 7 different forces. In its role for structure formation, these are called acceleration due to gravity and in its role for displacement, these are called gravity.)

In our reply to Robert Bennett above, we have discussed the defects in the result of Hafele and Keating's experiment about time dilation. In our essay, we have given a different meaning of time dilation, which we believe as true. However, length contraction, which is a different concept altogether, is only apparent. Walk towards a hill and it will appear to grow. This is due to the angle of radiation emanated from that direction reaching our cornea (can be taken as a point) that causes such illusion.

Your definition of electron is like telling basudeba is a person. But what is a person? There are many questions on the validity of a wave packet.

And your final question now! We believe in a background structure and the interplay of energy on it according to two principles: conservation (of matter and energy) and inertia (of rest and inertia of restoration or elasticity). We believe that dark energy is an oxymoron. It is the universe as a whole spinning around a cosmic center like the planets in the solar system. Now the galactic clusters are moving away from each other like sometimes planets appear to move away from each other again to come closer. In distant future, the galactic clusters will appear to close in. Only this can explain why the universe is not expanding even in galactic scales, but only in higher clusters. By "it" if you mean the universe, then the answer is vice versa. If by "it" if you mean information, then it is the background structure that gives rise to bits.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Your thought experiment replicates the arguments of a nineteenth century fiction called "FLAT LANDS", which inhibited 2-D creatures and the account of one of them after a visit to Earth. This has misguided everyone till date. Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the "internal structural space" from the "external relational space". Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. Thus, the face of a cube is 2-D, does it have independent existence? The "mathematics" involving n-dimensions is also a myth. Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics.

Measurement is a conscious process of comparison between two similar quantities, one of which is called the scaling constant (unit). The cognition part induces the action leading to comparison, the reaction of which is again cognized as information. There is a threshold limit for such cognition. Hence Nature is mathematical in some perceptible ways. This has been proved by the German physiologist Mr. Ernst Heinrich Weber, who measured human response to various physical stimuli. Carrying out experiments with lifting increasing weights, he devised the formula: ds = k (dW / W), where ds is the threshold increase in response (the smallest increase still discernible), dW the corresponding increase in weight, W the weight already present and k the proportionality constant. This has been developed as the Weber-Fechner law. This shows that the conscious response follows a somewhat logarithmic law. This has been successfully applied to a wide range of physiological responses.

Mathematics is also related to the measurement of time evolution of the state of something. These time evolutions depict rate of change. When such change is related to motion; like velocity, acceleration, etc, it implies total displacement from the position occupied by the body and moving to the adjacent position. This process is repeated due to inertia till it is modified by the introduction of other forces. Thus, these are discrete steps that can be related to three dimensional structures only. Mathematics measures only the numbers of these steps, the distances involved including amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc. Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph - the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.

The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance - linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.

You say a person is just a wave packet, but consider the physics and the mathematics behind the concept. It is full of aberrations. We give you just one example. The wave function is determined by solving Schrödinger's differential equation: d2ψ/dx2 + 8π2m/h2 [E-V(x)]ψ = 0. By using a suitable energy operator term, the equation is written as Hψ = Eψ. The way the equation has been written, it appears to be an equation in one dimension, but in reality it is a second order equation signifying a two dimensional field, as the original equation and the energy operator contain a term x2. The method of the generalization of the said Schrödinger equation to the three spatial dimensions does not stand mathematical scrutiny. A third order equation implies volume. Addition of three areas does not generate volume and neither x+y+z ≠ (x.y.z) nor x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z). Thus, there is no wonder that it has failed to explain spectra other than hydrogen. The so-called success in the case of helium and lithium spectra gives results widely divergent from observation. The probability calculations, squaring of a complex variable, mathematical operations involving infinity, brute force approach, etc are un-mathematical manipulation in the name of mathematics. There are many such aberrations.

It is interesting to note that wherever both of us applied our mind independently, we have arrived at near similar conclusions. But whenever you relied on the views of other scientists, we have difference of opinion. The reason is: modern science is built on an incremental manner. Theories are built upon "established theories" without continuously evaluating them in the light of the results of latest experiments and observations. This blind acceptance of "established theories" is nothing but superstition. It is perpetuated by the books and papers eulogizing these as "in a brilliant deduction", "with a stroke of genius", "a highly successful theory", etc, to label these theories. which are unwanted misleading information to prevent free thinking and guiding the students in the right direction.

This has been compounded by the race for going ahead, which prevents students to look back. In the peer group, it generates the cult of incomprehensibility. For this reason, precise definitions are becoming rare in science. They use "operational definitions", which can be manipulated to suit their convenience. Look at the declarations by LHC regarding detection of the Higg's boson. Now there is a rush to change the name of the particle to share honors. Given the clarity level, we wonder how many people applauding the writers in this context really understand their views totally! The hurry also generates reductionism, so that totality of the theories is lost sight of. Many fundamental laws are applicable in multi-disciplinary areas. For example, Doppler effect is used in light, sound, cosmology, and SR (length contraction). Yet, no one used it to SR to point out that the length contraction is only apparent to the observer due to Doppler effect.

There is a necessity to scrap all theories and re-write them from the scratch based on the data available today. Even after more than a century, should we still persist with the concept of extra-dimensions? This will not undermine the effects of earlier scientists, as due to their efforts only we have come this far. But only to show honor to them, we cannot perpetuates myths - which most of the interpretations of quantum theory and latest cosmology are.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

It appears we are talking about the same thing in different languages.

Your view is correct that we can make a projection for the future based on past readings. And in most cases, it may turn out to be true. But still a small chance remains that it may not be so, because of the uncertainty induced by the environment.

Our "not non-existent" and your "existent" mean the same thing.

If you look at the ego-clash between scientists during the first half of the last century, you will know how much it has harmed the growth of science. To prove own superiority, scientists even resorted to fantasizing. One example is EPR Paradox. It is known that particles are not entangled infinitely, but only over limited distances.

Why restrict observation to "sight sensory system" and extend to other sensory mechanisms also?

Your description of the knowability of objects is strikingly similar to the views expressed in the Essay "Is Reality Digital or Analog" written by us in this forum three years ago. What we see is not the object proper, but the radiation emitted by it that interacts with similar radiation emitted/received/measured by our eyes. But when we touch it, we cut across the radiation and directly touch the object. Thus, what we see, we cannot touch and what we touch, we cannot see. This also induces uncertainty to some extent.

Doppler effect is used in light, sound, cosmology, and SR (length contraction). Yet, no one used it to SR to point out that the length contraction is only apparent to the observer due to Doppler effect. When you move towards or away from a mountain, the changing angles of the light coming from the mountain and reaching your cornea gives the impression of change in its volume - hence mass and height, which is the same as length in a different direction. This obvious fact is not seen by many.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

This is with reference to the points raised by you in Dr. Peter Jackson's thread.

Your statement on reality echos the ancient Indian Philosophy of Vedanta. It was proposed to resolve the seemingly differences between various texts dealing with consciousness. Since the mechanism of perception, which is associated with consciousness (as in the statement "I know this"), is same in all cases to all persons at all times, the ultimate reality is one and immutable and cannot be directly accessed. But when we come to the physical world, the position is different.

It is true that everything is ever changing. But change is ever present. And that is real. The question is: in an ever-changing world, how do we define reality? The only possibility is by accepting the "representations thereof, if they correspond with existence as knowable to us" - as per your statement. This correspondence is done by assigning an invariant concept to each object and giving it a name. This is nothing but information. Thus, information has three components: the transmitter, the receiver and the message. The link is perception. Unless the receiver decodes and perceives the message, it is meaningless. Since transmission is subject to interference from the ever changing environment, we have to take into account of that also.

Hence we define reality as the invariant aspect associated with all objects and consistent with other universal physical laws (existence), that can be perceived as a concept (knowability) and expressed through a language (communicability). Since the three aspects are related, anything showing these characteristics is real.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Your post is an excellent example of showing that most of our misunderstandings are caused by our own indiscretion or non-application of mind (in addition of course to our other limitations, such as ignorance, arrogance, etc). We note that you have gone through our Essay fully paying attention to its implications at each stage. Few people do it now-a-days. Thanks.

We could not elaborate more due to space limitations. Regarding delayed choice experiment, we have said that it is a variant of double-slit experiment, which is wrong. For this we have given justification briefly. Firstly, we have shown that the measuring instrument is interfering with the final result. Secondly, we have shown that it is not a quantum phenomenon, but happens in macro world also.

If you go by logic, excluded middle, along with law of contradictions, flows from a dichotomy of the law of identity. The principle of excluded middle is an expression of its jointly exhaustive aspect, while the law of contradictions deals with the mutually exclusive aspect. As we have pointed out earlier, the law of identity has been exhaustively discussed in the ancient Indian philosophy of Vedanta, dating back at least to 3000 BC or older. One of its branches "Adwaita", deals with the law of identity. Another branch "Dwaitaadweta" deals with both the laws of contradictions and the excluded middle, along with a host of other aspects. But the basic point here is that all flow from the law of identity - "Adwaita".

If you go to the dialogue of Socrates and Theaetetus, which is the foundation of the law of identity, you will notice that Socrates was talking of "different from the other and the same with itself". Vedanta stretches this logic to creation event. There everything is indiscernible. Hence at that stage, all A=A (called Brahman). Here it deals only with consciousness (observer), as unless something is perceived as such, it exists independently on its own, but it has no meaning for us. The content of all observations is "I perceive this...(different observables)". Thus, from the angle of observation, all A=A. But when it comes to the observable, A is not A. The other A represents the material world, where everything is discrete. You also admit it, when you say: "that no two galaxies, planets, trees, people, snowflakes or grains of sand will be found absolutely identical when observed at above molecular level". But below molecular level, they are indiscernible. Thus, the law of excluded middle cannot apply here. You are partially echoing the views of Aristotle in his Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4. Leibniz and Russell drew their law of identity from the same source.

Gödel's n-valued logic is based on the "principle of truth-functionality" - that the truth of a compound sentence is determined by the truth values of its component sentences (thus, it remains unaffected when one of its component sentences is replaced by another sentence with the same truth value). Though it appears to be true, it can be misleading due to reductionism. There is a story of six blind men, who went to "see" an elephant. Each touched one of its parts and reported his findings truthfully. One who has not seen an elephant cannot make any sense of their combined statements, even though it describes the elephant fully. But one, who has seen an elephant, can easily make sense out of it.

Many valued logic does not restrict the number of truth values to only two: they allow for a larger set W of truth degrees. There is no standard interpretation of the truth degrees and they are to be understood depending on the actual field of application. However, like the classical logic, it is generally assumed that there are two truth degrees, usually denoted by "0" and "1". The concept of Fuzzy Logic, which is a form of many valued logic, was conceived by Lotfi Zadeh not as a control methodology, but as a way of processing data by allowing partial set membership rather than crisp set membership or non-membership (data that is approximate rather than fixed and exact.). He reasoned that people do not require precise, numerical information input, and yet they are capable of highly adaptive control. If feedback controllers could be programmed to accept noisy, imprecise input (whose truth value ranges in degree between 0 and 1 - the excluded middle), they would be much more effective and perhaps easier to implement.

But these concepts cannot be applied to a wave, because it has to be continuous, as it only transfers momentum to its continuously adjacent positions without physically displacing the medium. The interval between two troughs or two crests cannot be called the excluded middle, because if they are excluded, there will be no trough or crest. There will be ditches and no wave. As we have pointed out in our essay; "A wave is perturbations of density, pressure and velocity, where sites of maximum density alternate with sites of minimum density to generate and propagate the vibrations. They are distributed periodically and propagate in the medium. The wavelength is a weak perturbation, where the relative values of the density amplitude (i.e., the greatest value of density, divided by the average density of the medium) is small as compared to unity."

There is one more reason for the wave to be continuous. Time is the interval between events. The wave attains a crest and a trough in time. Time evolution always takes place in cycles from being to becoming and then either recycling fully or partially. In the case of a wave, the recycling is fully - one wave replaced by another similar wave (assuming there are no other distracting factors). Thus, it has to be continuous. This principle applies to the helix.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir, (Dr. Peter Jackson)

We have replied to your points on the excluded middle, many valued functions and fuzzy logic above. Here is some more clarification regarding Maxwell's theories.

The wave function is determined by solving Schrödinger's differential equation: d2ψ/dx2 + 8π2m/h2 [E-V(x)]ψ = 0. By using a suitable energy operator term, the equation is written as Hψ = Eψ. The way the equation has been written, it appears to be an equation in one dimension, but in reality it is a second order equation signifying a two dimensional field, as the original equation and the energy operator contain a term x2. The method of the generalization of the said Schrödinger equation to the three spatial dimensions does not stand mathematical scrutiny. A third order equation implies volume. Addition of three areas does not generate volume and neither x+y+z ≠ (x.y.z) nor x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z). Thus, there is no wonder that it has failed to explain spectra other than hydrogen. The so-called success in the case of helium and lithium spectra gives results widely divergent from observation. The probability calculations, squaring of a complex variable, mathematical operations involving infinity, brute force approach, etc are un-mathematical manipulation in the name of mathematics. There are many such aberrations.

Sorry to disappoint you, but we do not accept anything without being satisfied by its authenticity. Name dropping does not influence us. We may be wrong. If someone points out our mistakes, we get an opportunity of re-evaluating ourselves. Hence kindly excuse us.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

You admit that the uncertainty induced by the environment can be for various reasons, and "that is a function of how knowledge is compiled. Obviously, the more complex what is being investigated is, the more likely there are to be flaws". All our perceptions and functions are influenced by such flaws. Hence it is important to identify and remove it and "construct valid knowledge".

Your interpretation of the "not non-existent" in our statement is not correct. We meant non-existence as such at here-now, but existence elsewhere, may be in a different combination. This is because of the conservation laws. In any case, every thing is ever changing; hence alterable.

You have correctly noted that SR ignores gravity, but left out its implication. Is there any place where gravity does not operate? Then while sailing on a sea, can we pretend as if we are moving on road and the same laws as on the road will be applicable even if we move on the sea?

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

The classical object has become modern state. Hence both convey the same intrinsic meaning. Uniqueness is inherent in all created beings. No dispute there.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

There is no dispute that uncertainty in our knowledge of what occurred is a function of various reasons. There is no uncertainty in what occurs. Existence belongs to the observable, whereas uncertainty belongs to observation by the observer. Both are mutually independent. Hence there is no dispute.

As a student, Einstein was mediocre. He got the job not due to merit, but due to recommendation. His married life was horrible. But his ambition was very high. Hence he tried everything including plagiarism to establish himself. Initially no one noted his tricks. But once he was established as a great scientist, he became more reasonable (except for his ego clash with Bohr). So what you quoted shows his better side. Both of his SR and GR are faulty. We have shown that the equivalence principle is a wrong description of facts and leads to contradictions. His theory of gravity fails outside the Solar System. Even within the Solar System, there are question marks. His explanation of Mercury's orbit was plagiarized from Gerber. Yet, the pity is instead of properly evaluating his theories, there is hero worship and he has become unquestionable!

Dear Sir, (Dr. Klingman)

You have proposed a different field, never seen, as the consciousness field and the field is aware of both position and motion aspects of reality - Space and Time! Did you realize that by this you have not only made a universally true statement that can explain the creation event?

If you bring down position and motion to fundamental levels (Space and Time are later derivatives), then position becomes the background structure on which motion acts multiplied by inertia. This, in turn, generates friction due to the reverse process of inertia of restoration (elasticity) of the background structure that acts like the bow-shock effect for the boat in a river. Where the inertia of restoration dominates, motion becomes zero cutting off a big chunk and returning back to repeat this process again. The successive motions are less energetic. Thus, viewed at the current rate of motion, everything will look far off the center. This is the true explanation of the current state of the universe and not the so-called Inflation.

In the universal scale, position can exist on its own independently, but motion is energy that requires an object to move to make it perceivable. Thus, the universal position can form the background structure. Since there is no true void, nothing moves in a straight line, because the object next to it obstructs it and it must "scrape through" by displacing that object laterally. This is because, all micro and planets, stars and galaxies, etc, are nearly spherical - their diameter is related to their circumference by a ration √10 instead of π. Thus, the universe is spinning on its axis making the galactic clusters look temporarily receding from each other, though no such effect is seen in lesser scales - the Solar system is not expanding. This explains the so-called dark energy, which is an oxymoron - if it is dark (non-interacting), it cannot be energy, which is perceptible only through its interactions.

You are correct that "It makes sense only if consciousness is inherently a field which concentrates locally to become aware of local structure and 'in'-formation - the formation of a model or encoded structure within more comprehensive structure". The in-formation part implies that there is a sequence. We have repeatedly shown how space and time arise out of the concept of sequence. But there is another important angle here. The observer (relatively static) and the observable (transitory) are related through the mechanism of observation. The content of all observations is "I perceive this...(different observables)". Thus, from the angle of observation, all A=A. But when it comes to the observable, A is not A. The other A represents the material world, where everything is discrete. The relation, which makes the observation possible, is the fundamental force gravity.

Have you ever wondered the difference between force and energy? Free on-line dictionary defines force as "The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power" in the general category, but changes to "A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application" in the physics category. The same dictionary defines energy as "The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power" and "The capacity of a physical system to do work" in general and physics category respectively. The word "capacity to cause" physical change means, energy in its stored or potential state is force. In its kinetic state (vigorous activity), it is interaction and after it ceases to act, it is action. Though the three are only evolutionary states of the same thing, they are physically different.

Gravity has two functions: structure formation that makes particles interact and its complement displacement that makes particles separates. Gravity as a "force" stabilizes orbits between interacting bodies, when both bodies circle around a point called barycenter. If you take the distance from this point to the centers of each body, draw a square of that length and distribute the mass of the two bodies in the reverse field, you will find some interesting results. We leave it to you for working it out so that you can draw your own conclusions. For this reason, gravity is closer to magnetism. Bodies with strong magnetic fields exhibit high gravitational potential also.

On the other hand, gravity as "energy" in its structure formation function; makes particles interact in four different combinations of proximity-distance variables (proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance) between the two bodies involved in interaction. These four are expressed as strong, weak nuclear, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively.

The states of matter are described their dimension, which differentiate the "internal structural space" - bare mass from the "external relational space" - the radiative mass. It is perceived through electromagnetic radiation (ocular perception), where an electric field and a magnetic field, move perpendicular to each other and also to the direction of their motion. Thus, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. For this reason, we classify the states of matter as solid, fluid or gaseous, depending upon whether the dimension is fixed, unfixed or unbound. Since gravity displaces all three types from each other, it appears in 3 x 2 1 = 7 types. Thus, all the present models of gravity, which treats it as one type, fail outside the Solar System.

These are elaborations of our essay, which harmonize with your essay.

Regards,

basudeba