INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra

Dear Sir,

When we view the same thing from different angles, we describe it differently. But it is all about description. If you can point out the specific cases, we will try to harmonize our perspectives.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

You are absolutely right. And there are two more reasons.

The ego of scientists in the first half of the last century misguided science as they insisted to prove the superiority of their views instead of genuinely finding out the correspondence with reality. The famous clash between Einstein and Bohr is one example. It is more one-up-manship than science. The cult of incomprehensibility is born out of this compounding the problem. The other effect is self-praise or hero worship statements that are contained in almost all papers makes the students believe in them blindly. This makes them superstitious. Modern Scientists are the biggest lot of superstitious people.

Secondly, all of QM and extensions of Relativity is incremental. They build the superstructure upon others without finding out the strength of the foundation. This way the mistakes are not only carried forward, but gets compounded. No one looks back because they are afraid of being left behind. This is giving rise to reductionism limiting the vision further. Science needs to be rewritten from the scratch based on presently available data.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Again you will say that we say there is no difference, but tell the opposite.

Actually there is no contradiction between what you say and what we say. You are speaking in absolute terms and we are speaking at relative terms. Like the opposite side of Moon. You say it exists. We say, we are not concerned because it does not affect us. But both of us agree about what we see.

Your views are very close to two branches of ancient Indian philosophy, Samkhya and Vaisheshika. Both deal with the physical world from different perspectives - Samkhya starting from creation event and dealing mostly with perceptual side and Vaisheshika staring with the physical world and its characteristics. But both admit a non-interacting conscious observer to report the existence.

Regards,

basudeba

Reply to Dr. Willard Mittelman,

Dear Sir,

We have discussed Wheeler's delayed choice experiment in our essay published on May 31, 2013 to show that the measurement process and the conclusions derived from it are incorrect. Yet, when you say: "measurements made today can determine the past history of the universe", you are correct. Measurement is always taken a time t, and the result is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc. Thus, we cannot know the "present state" because by that time we perceive the result of measurement, the object has evolved further. From this, we can infer that the result of measurement represents the past evolutionary state. This is true both for the macro and the micro systems.

First the proposition, then the discarding of the Cosmological Constant by Einstein and its reincarnation to explain dark energy are mired in various controversies. Firstly, there cannot be dark energy (we call a background structure), because energy cannot be dark (non-interacting) - energy is always inferred from its interactions involving mass and has never been seen directly. Bare mass is dark because we see only when the radiation reaches our eyes and without energy, mass cannot interact by itself. The galaxy rotation problem is wrong mathematics. The galactic clusters only appear to recede from each other because the Universe as a whole is spinning on its central axis just like planets go round the Sun. Temporarily they appear to recede from each other to come close again. Similarly, after many years, the galactic clusters will appear to come closer. This is the reason why the expansion of the Universe is not evident in lesser scales.

The mathematics of General Relativity, Einstein's theory of gravitation, is highly misleading. It should be based on a constant differential that is not zero and seek the motion of some given mass or volume. This mass or volume may be as small as we like, but it cannot be zero (hence no infinities). This causes several fundamental and far-reaching changes to the mathematics of GR, but the first of these changes is of course the elimination of singularity from all solutions. Therefore the central "fact" of the black hole must be given up. Whatever may be at the center of a black hole, it cannot be a "singularity".

Chandrasekhar used Einstein's field equations to calculate densities and accelerations inside a collapsing superstar. His mathematics suggested the singularity at the center, as well as other characteristics that are still accepted as defining the black hole. Einstein himself contradicted

Chandrasekhar's conclusions. Apart from using mass points in GR, Einstein made several other basic errors that even Chandrasekhar did not correct and is still being continued. One such error is the use of the term γ, which, as we have explained in many threads, really does not change anything except perception of the object by different observers unrelated to the time evolution of the object proper. Hence it cannot be treated as actually affecting the time-evolution of the object. Yet, in GR, it affects both "x" and "t" transformations. In some experimental situations γ is nearly correct due to Doppler shift. But in a majority of situations, γ fails, sometimes very badly. Also γ is the main term in the mass increase equation. To calculate volumes or densities in a field, one must calculate both radius (length) and mass; and the term comes into play in both.

Yet, Einstein had wrongly assigned several length and time variables in SR, giving them to the wrong coordinate systems or to no specific coordinate systems. He skipped an entire coordinate system, achieving two degrees of relativity when he thought he had only achieved one. Because his x and t transforms were compromised, his velocity transform was also compromised. He carried this error into the mass transforms, which infected them as well. This problem then infected the tensor calculus and GR. This explains the various anomalies and variations and the so-called violations within Relativity. Since Einstein's field equations are not correct, Schwarzschild's solution of 1917 is not correct. Israel's non-rotating solution is not correct. Kerr's rotating solution is not correct. And the solutions of Penrose, Wheeler, Hawking, Carter, and Robinson are not correct.

Let us take just one example. The black hole equations are directly derived from GR - a theory that stipulates that nothing can equal or exceed the speed of light. Yet the centripetal acceleration of the black hole must equal or exceed the speed of light in order to overcome it. In that case, all matter falling into a black hole would instantaneously achieve infinite mass. It is not clear how bits of infinite mass can be collected into a finite volume, increase in density and then disappear into a singularity. In other words, the assumptions and the mathematics that led to the theory of the black hole do not work inside the created field. The exotic concepts like wormholes, tachyons, virtual particle pairs, quantum leaps and non-linear i-trajectories at 11-dimensional boson-massed fields in parallel universes, etc, cannot avoid this central contradiction. It is not the laws of physics that breaks down inside a black hole. It is the mathematics and the postulates of Relativity that break down. The idea of Cosmological constant also similarly breaks down.

The cosmological principle has come into question recently as astronomers find subtle but growing evidence of a special direction in space. The CMB, the so-called afterglow of the big bang, is not perfectly smooth - hot and cold spots speckle the sky. In recent years, however, scientists have discovered that these spots are not quite as randomly distributed as they first appeared - they align in a pattern that point out a special direction in space.

Cosmologists have theatrically dubbed it the "axis of evil". More hints of a cosmic arrow come from studies of supernovae, stellar cataclysms that briefly outshine entire galaxies. Cosmologists have been using supernovae to map the accelerating expansion of the universe. Detailed statistical studies reveal that supernovae are moving even faster in a line pointing just slightly off the axis of evil. Similarly, astronomers have measured galaxy clusters streaming through space at a million miles an hour toward an area in the southern sky. Thus, the mass density calculation of the universe is wrong.

The equation: ΩM ΩΛ Ωk = 1 appears tantalizingly similar to the Mr. Fermi's description of the three part Hamiltonian for the atom: H = HA HR HI. Here, H is 1. ΩM, which represents matter density is similar to HA, the bare mass. ΩΛ, which represents the cosmological constant, is similar to HR, the radiating bare charge. Ωk, which represents curvature of the universe, is similar to HI, the interaction. This indicates (as Mr. Mason A. Porter and Mr. Predrag Cvitanovic had shown in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society in 2005), that the macro and the micro worlds share the same sets of mathematics. Thus, the Universe is spinning on its axis as a whole, the receding galaxies phenomenon is temporary and the concept of dark energy is fiction.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir, (Dr. Anton Biermans)

You have started off very well - asking the right questions. That is the sign of a seeker for truth. But somehow, you have mixed up many things into a knot that need to be untangled. We begin with your egg example, as it reflects the universal creation mechanism for massive structures.

We had actually seen an egg being delivered by a hen from about 5 feet up on a wall which fell on a concrete platform below. It was a rose colored spongy blob that sprang a little on hitting the floor, rolled some distance and turned white and egg shaped with the exterior cover hardening. Thus, its creation does not "comes down to un-breaking the egg", but a combination of fluid (without fixed dimensions - we call it "anasthaa") to transforming a fixed structure (we call it "asthanwaa"). If you look at the creation of Earth and life form of Earth, you will find that entire creation process followed this route. But your gas example is not appropriate, because, though all gases have radiative dimension, the relatively low dense gases like hydrogen spread out more than relatively more dense gases like carbon dioxide - thus un-breaking.

Entropy is the inertia that makes a thermodynamic process more likely to occur. Inertia of motion is always accompanied by inertia of restoration (elasticity) in the medium, which restores the equilibrium of the medium. Thus, low entropy, which describes the natural tendency of the universe to fall apart into disorder, is always accompanied by an opposite effect. This turns the times arrow to cycles making time cyclic. To that extent you are right in questioning the SLT.

Entropy is very hard to directly measure as it is a value that can be seen to embody several quantities such as kinetic and potential energy, temperature, work and force. So it can be seen as a derived value that relies on all these values. It can mean the tendency of the cosmos to fall into disorder, be a measurement of thermodynamic process or reaction, or simply a measure of the energy available for work or becomes heat. Heat is associated with hot energy like those associated with elementary particles. Once that becomes unavailable, the opposite effect takes over and the structures dissolve into equilibrium led by the inertia of restoration. Slowly it revives its conjugate inertia of motion, which brings in inherent instability to the system in different localities. This starts the creation process again. Thus, all along there is the cause and effect chain operational.

You say: "particle properties are defined to be independent from their behavior". This is true only for the physical properties. You cannot directly define the some properties of a particle (such as charge) without interaction with other objects. And that behavior is not random. Further, you cannot separate particle properties from particles. The egg-shape comes with the egg.

Gravity is not a force that contracts like magnetism. It stabilizes the two bodies to orbit around each other with the barycenter as the center to induce equilibrium.

A "clock inside a gravitational field is observed to run slower" has to be treated with caution. Even light travels slower in denser mediums. A strong gravitational field means more mass over a smaller field leading to high average density. But this affects the entire field and not the clock alone. Thus, there will be no net effect like the passenger of the train did not find length contraction. In any case, clock readings are not relativistic, as even Einstein has used the clock at A as a privileged frame of reference to synchronize the clocks at B and C (though later he claimed the opposite). In any case, to define the very concept of second, we use a privileged frame of reference - the motion of Earth around Sun. Even the atomic clock uses a large number of readings to match with this unit. The GPS uses the average readings of a number of atomic clocks to do just that.

There is much misconception regarding Higg's particle. It does not provide mass to all particles. Many particles acquire mass via strong interaction. Secondly, why should these particles require such a massive particle - as much as 134 protons - to hammer in the mass? In fact it raises many questions on the electro-weak theory itself. The W boson is said to be the mediator in beta decay by facilitating the flavor change or reversal of a quark from being a down quark to being an up quark: d → u W-. The mass of a quark is said to be about 4MeV and that of a W boson, about 80GeV - almost the size of an iron atom. Thus, the mediating particle outweighs the mediated particle by a ratio of 20,000 to 1. Since Nature is extremely economical in all operations, why should it require such a heavy boson to flip a quark over? There is no satisfactory explanation for this. The W- boson then decays into an electron and an antineutrino: W- → e v. Since the neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are said to be mass-less and the electron weighs about 0.5MeV, there is a great imbalance. Though the decay is not intended to be an equation, a huge amount of energy magically appearing from nowhere at the required time and then disappearing into nothing, needs explanation.

Messers Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam "predicted" the W and Z bosons using an SU (2) gauge theory. But the bosons in a gauge theory must be mass-less. Hence one must assume that the masses of the W and Z bosons were "predicted" by some other mechanism to give the bosons its mass. It is said that the mass is acquired through Higgs mechanism - a form of spontaneous symmetry breaking. But it is an oxymoron. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is symmetry that is broken spontaneously. Something that happens spontaneously requires no mechanism or mediating agent. Hence the Higgs mechanism has to be spontaneous action and not a mechanism. This does not require a mediating agent - at least not the Higg's boson. Apparently, the SU (2) problem has been sought to be solved by first arbitrarily calling it a symmetry, then pointing to the spontaneous breaking of this symmetry without any mechanism, and finally calling that breaking the Higgs mechanism! Thus, the whole exercise produces only a name!

A parity violation means that beta decay works only on left-handed particles or right handed anti-particles. Messers Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam provided a theory to explain this using a lot of complicated renormalized mathematics, which showed both a parity loss and a charge conjugation loss. However, at low energies, one of the Higgs fields acquires a vacuum expectation value and the gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken down to the symmetry of electromagnetism. This symmetry breaking would produce three mass-less Goldstone bosons but they are said to be "eaten" by three of the photon-like fields through the Higgs mechanism, giving them mass. These three fields become the W-, W, and Z bosons of the weak interaction, while the fourth gauge field which remains mass-less is the photon of electromagnetism.

All the evidence in support of the Higgs mechanism turns out to be evidence that, huge energy packets near the predicted W and Z masses exist. In that case, why should we accept that because big particles equal to W and Z masses exist for very short times, the SU (2) gauge theory can't be correct in predicting zero masses. And that the gauge symmetry must be broken, so that the Higgs mechanism must be proved correct without any mechanical reason for such breaking? There are other explanations for this phenomenon. If the gauge theory requires to be bypassed with a symmetry breaking, it is not a good theory to begin with. Normally, if equations yield false predictions - like these zero boson masses - the "mathematics" must be wrong. Because mathematics is done at "here-now" and zero is the absence of something at "here-now". One can't use some correction to it in the form of a non-mechanical "field mechanism". Thus, Higgs mechanism is not a mechanism at all. It is a spontaneous symmetry breaking, and there is no evidence for any mechanism in something that is spontaneous.

Since charge is perceived through a mechanism, a broken symmetry that is gauged may mean that the vacuum is charged. But charge is not treated as mechanical in QED. Even before the Higgs field was postulated, charge was thought to be mediated by virtual photons. Virtual photons are non-mechanical ghostly particles. They are supposed to mediate forces spontaneously, with no energy transfer. This is mathematically and physically not valid. Charge cannot be assigned to the vacuum, since that amounts to assigning characteristics to the void. One of the first postulates of physics is that extensions of force, motion, or acceleration cannot be assigned to "nothing". For charge to be mechanical, it would have to have extension or motion. All virtual particles and fields are imaginary assumptions. Higgs' field, like Dirac's field, is a "mathematical" imagery.

The proof for the mechanism is said to have been obtained in the experiment at the Gargamelle bubble chamber, which photographed the tracks of a few electrons suddenly starting to move - seemingly of their own accord. This is interpreted as a neutrino interacting with the electron by the exchange of an unseen Z boson. The neutrino is otherwise undetectable. Hence the only observable effect is the momentum imparted to the electron by the interaction. No neutrino or Z boson is detected. Why should it be interpreted to validate the imaginary postulate? The electron could have moved due to many other reasons.

It is said that the W and Z bosons were detected in 1983 by Carlo Rubbia. This experiment only detected huge energy packets that left a track that was interpreted to be a particle. It did not tell that it was a boson or that it was taking part in any weak mediation. Since large mesons can be predicted by other simpler methods (e.g., stacked spins; as proposed by some, etc), this particle detection is not proof of weak interaction or of the Higgs mechanism. It is only indication of a large particle or two.

In section 19.2, of his book "The Quantum Theory of Fields", Weinberg says: "We do not have to look far for examples of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Consider a chair. The equations governing the atoms of the chair are rotationally symmetric, but a solution of these equations, the actual chair, has a definite orientation in space". Classically, it was thought that parity was conserved because spin is an energy state. To conserve energy, there must be an equal number of left-handed and right-handed spins. Every left-handed spin cancels a right-handed spin of the same size, so that the sum is zero. If they were created from nothing - as in the Big Bang - they must also sum up to nothing. Thus, it is assumed that an equal number of left-handed and right-handed spins, at the quantum level.

It was also expected that interactions conserve parity, i.e., anything that can be done from left to right, can also be done from right to left. Observations like beta decay showed that parity is not conserved in some quantum interactions, because some interactions showed a preference for one spin over the other. The electroweak theory supplied a mystical and non-mechanical reason for it. But it is known that parity is not conserved always. Weinberg seems to imply that because there is a chair facing west, and not one facing east, there is a parity imbalance: that one chair has literally lopsided the entire universe! This, he explains as a spontaneously broken symmetry!

A spontaneously broken symmetry in field theory is always associated with a degeneracy of vacuum states. For the vacuum the expectation value of (a set of scalar fields) must be at a minimum of the vacuum energy. It is not certain that in such cases the symmetry is broken, because there is the possibility that the true vacuum is a linear superposition of vacuum states in which the summed scalar fields have various expectation values, which would respect the assumed symmetry. So, a degeneracy of vacuum states is the fall of these expectation values into a non-zero minimum. This minimum corresponds to a state of broken symmetry.

Since true vacuum is non-perceptible; hence nothingness; with only one possible state - zero - logically it would have no expectation values above zero. However, Mr. Weinberg assumed that the vacuum can have a range of non-zero states, giving both it and his fields a non-zero energy. Based on this wrong assumption, Mr. Weinberg manipulated these possible ranges of energies, assigning a possible quantum effective action to the field. Then he started looking at various ways it might create parity or subvert parity. Since any expectation value above zero for the vacuum is wholly arbitrary and only imaginary, he could have chosen either parity or non-parity. In view of Yang and Lee's finding, Mr. Weinberg choose non-parity. This implied that his non-zero vacuum degenerates to the minimum. Then he applied this to the chair! Spontaneous symmetry breaking actually occurs only for idealized systems that are infinitely large. So does Mr. Weinberg claim that a chair is an idealized system that is infinitely large!

According to Mr. Weinberg, the appearance of broken symmetry for a chair arises because it has a macroscopic moment of inertia I, so that its ground state is part of a tower of rotationally excited states whose energies are separated by only tiny amounts, of the order h2/I. This gives the state vector of the chair an exquisite sensitivity to external perturbations, so that even very weak external fields will shift the energy by much more than the energy difference of these rotational levels. As a result, any rotationally asymmetrical external field will cause the ground state or any other state of the chair with definite angular momentum numbers to rapidly develop components with other angular momentum quantum numbers. The states of the chair that are relatively stable with respect to small external perturbations are not those with definite angular momentum quantum numbers, but rather those with a definite orientation, in which the rotational symmetry of the underlying theory is broken.

Weinberg declares that he is talking about symmetry, but actually he is talking about decoherence. He is trying to explain why the chair is not a probability or an expectation value and why its wave function has collapsed into a definite state. Quantum mathematics works by proposing a range of states. This range is determined by the uncertainty principle. Mr. Weinberg assigned a range of states to the vacuum and then extended that range based on the non-parity knowledge of Messers Yang and Lee. But the chair is not a range of states: it is a state - the ground state. To degenerate or collapse into this ground state, or decohere from the probability cloud into the definite chair we see and experience, the chair has to interact with its surroundings. The chair is most stable when the surroundings are stable (having "a definite orientation"); so the chair aligns itself to this definite orientation. Mr. Weinberg argues that in doing so, it breaks the underlying symmetry. Thus, Mr. Weinberg does not know what he is talking about!

Weinberg believes that the chair is not just probabilistic as a matter of definite position. Apparently, he believes it is probabilistic in spin orientation also. He even talks about the macroscopic moment of inertia. This is extremely weird, because the chair has no macroscopic angular motion. The chair may be facing east or west, but there is no indication that it is spinning, either clockwise or counter clockwise. Even if it were spinning, there is no physical reason to believe that a chair spinning clockwise should have a preponderance of quanta in it spinning clockwise. QED has never shown that it is impossible to propose a macro-object spinning clockwise, with all constituent quanta spinning counterclockwise. However, evidently Weinberg is making this assumption without any supporting logic, evidence or mechanism. Spin parity was never thought to apply to macro-objects. A chair facing or spinning in one direction is not a fundamental energy state of the universe, and the Big Bang doesn't care if there are five chairs spinning left and four spinning right. The Big Bang didn't create chairs directly out of the void, so we don't have to conserve chairs!

Electroweak theory, like all quantum theories, is built on gauge fields. These gauge fields have built-in symmetries that have nothing to do with the various conservation laws. What physicists tried to do was to choose gauge fields that matched the symmetries they had found or hoped to find in their physical fields. QED began with the simplest field U (1), but the strong force and weak force had more symmetries and therefore required SU (2) and SU (3). Because these gauge fields were supposed to be mathematical fields (which is an abstraction) and not real physical fields, and because they contained symmetries of their own, physicists soon got tangled up in the gauge fields.

Later experiments showed that the symmetries in the so-called mathematical fields didn't match the symmetries in nature. However, the quantum theory could be saved if the gauge field could be somehow broken - either by adding ghost fields or by subtracting symmetries by "breaking" them. This way, the physicists landed up with 12 gauge bosons, only three of which are known to exist, and only one of which has been well-linked to the theory. Of these, the eight gluons are completely theoretical and only fill slots in the gauge theory. The three weak bosons apparently exist, but no experiment has tied them to beta decay. The photon is the only boson known to exist as a mediating "particle", and it was known long before gauge theory entered the picture.

Quantum theory has got even the only verified boson - the photon - wrong, since the boson of quantum theory is not a real photon: it is a virtual photon! QED couldn't conserve energy with a real photon, so the virtual photon mediates charge without any transfer of energy. The virtual photon creates a zero-energy field and a zero-energy mediation. The photon does not bump the electron, it just whispers a message in its ear. So, from a theoretical standpoint, the gauge groups are not the solution, they are part of the problem. We should be fitting the mathematics to the particles, not the particles to the mathematics. Quantum physicists claim repeatedly that their field is mainly experimental, but any cursory study of the history of the field shows that this claim is not true. Quantum physics has always been primarily "mathematical". A large part of 20th century experiment was the search for particles to fill out the gauge groups, and the search continues, because they are searching blind folded in a dark room for a black cat that does not exist. When US Congress wanted to curtail funding research in this vain exercise; they named the hypothetical Higg's boson (which is non-existent), as the "God particle" and tried to sway public opinion. Now they claim that they are "tantalizingly close" not to discover the "God particle", but to "the possibility of getting a glimpse of it". How long the scientists continue to fool the public!

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir, (Dr. JAMES R. AKERLUND)

Wheeler's definition of "It" as "apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits" has to be read with "registering of equipment-evoked responses". The binary unit, or bit, is a message representing one of two choices: 1 or 0 - on or off - yes or no. The 'on's are coded (written in programming language) with 1 and the 'off's with 0. By themselves 1 or 0 does not mean anything. Related to a context, 1 signals some concept representing information about materials objects exists in that context and 0 means it does not exist. Except signaling the agreement or non-agreement with something predefined (i.e., a concept), binary has no other use. You have replaced one code (1) by another (u) without changing the basic pattern.

Thus, "It" stands for the information content or the concept about something, which is the "Bits". Information is always about something, say, some material, but it not the material itself. There is no need to bring in several weird concepts to deny this simple truth. If "our universe was information versus particle physics, or Bit vs. It", how do you define 'It' and 'Bit'? If particle physics is not information on particle behavior, what is it? Incidentally, how can we "know" the value of π in other Universes? Rather, what is the proof that other Universes exist and the value of their physical constants are different from ours? How can we "know" that the two systems are in "uniform translatory motion relative to each other?" No fantasy please. Let us talk physics.

The term γ, which, as we have explained in many threads here and which many participants supported, really does not change anything except perception of the object by different observers unrelated to the time evolution of the object proper. Hence it cannot be treated as actually affecting the time-evolution of the object. Yet, in SR & GR, it affects both "x" and "t" transformations. In some experimental situations γ is nearly correct due to Doppler shift. But in a majority of situations, γ fails, sometimes very badly. Also γ is the main term in the mass increase equation.

To calculate volumes or densities in a field, one must calculate both radius (length) and mass; and the term comes into play in both. Yet, Einstein had wrongly assigned several length and time variables in SR, giving them to the wrong coordinate systems or to no specific coordinate systems. He skipped an entire coordinate system, achieving two degrees of relativity when he thought he had only achieved one. Because his x and t transforms were compromised, his velocity transform was also compromised. He carried this error into the mass transforms, which infected them as well. This problem then infected the tensor calculus and GR. This explains the various anomalies and variations and the so-called violations within Relativity.

Einstein has used equations x2+y2+z2-c2t2 = 0 and ξ2 + η2 + ζ2 - c2 τ2 = 0 to describe two spheres that the observers see of the evolution of the same light pulse. Apart from the fact that the above equation of the sphere is mathematically wrong (it describes a sphere with the center at origin, whose z-axis is zero, i.e., not a sphere, but a circle), it also shows how the same treats time differently. Since general equation of sphere is supposed to be x2+y2+z2+Dx+Ey+Fz+G = 0, both the equations can at best describe two spheres with origin at (0,0,0) and the points (x,y,z) and (ξ, η, ζ ) on the circumference of the respective spheres. Since the second person is moving away from the origin, the second equation is not applicable in his case. Assuming he sees the same sphere, he should know its origin (because he has already seen it, otherwise he will not know that it is the same light pulse. In that case, there is no way to relate both pulses) and its present location. In other words, he will measure the same radius as the other person, implying: c2t2 = c2 τ2 or t = τ.

Again, if x2+y2+z2-c2t2 = x'2+y'2+z'2-c2 τ 2, t ≠ τ.

This creates a contradiction, which invalidates his mathematics. We do not follow everything blindly. That is superstition. If you find our view wrong, please show it.

The very fact that you are referring to MOND shows that you admit Einstein's mistakes. Because it was proposed to explain gravity, as GR could not explain many phenomenon - specifically it fails miserably outside the Solar system.

Your description of dimension is thoroughly misguided. Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the "internal structural space" of all objects 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. We use dimension to describe the state of matter: if it has fixed dimension, it is solid, if it has loose dimension, it is fluid, if it has radiative dimension, it is gas/plasma. Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this myth?

You are welcome to read our essay published on May 31, 2013.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

We have no hesitation in giving you the references if it helps you. The only reason why we are hesitating is to avoid bias. You can mail in our email id the references you want and we will send those to you. You will never find those references in GOOGLE.

Regards,

basudeba