Dear Sir,
Good that you have tempered your aggressive posturing with discussion on weather. We wish you would have kept your commitment of discussing our essay when you visited there. Is there any point in wasting time?
Your first repudiation of our quote: 1 does not stand for nothing; but as we have pointed out, it stands for a code in programming language. Your u is also a code for properties, which can be written as a code in programming language. Hence what is new?
We said: "'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." That includes particle physics, which is not a everyday man's topic. Hence what is new?
You accept our description of the parallel Universe as fantasy when you admit: "The issue of parallel universes is a very controversial issue in physics." It is sheer waste of public money in the name of research by coming up with incomprehensible gimmicks and changing names from the goddamned particle originally proposed to "God particle", and claim that it provides mass to everything, which is not a true statement. According to the US National Academy of Science (NAS): "In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists". The parallel Universe concept is not based on "observations and experiments". Hence we called it fantasy - you may call it group fantasy. We go only by observations and experiments and reject fantasy even when they are told by big names. Our definition of dimension IS informational, as even after more than a century of failure to find extra dimensions, most scientists are talking about it based on the nineteenth century fiction FLATLANDS. We have shown the true nature and use of dimensions to break this fantasy. You are welcome to prove us wrong.
We have shown that Einstein was wrong in his concepts and you have not commented on our proof. Elsewhere in this forum, we have proved that his process of length measurement is faulty, his method of synchronization violates the principle of relativity, his principle of invariance is a wrong description of facts that leads to Russell's paradox of set theory. Length and mass contraction are only apparent and can be explained by Doppler shift. And finally, his theory of gravitation is wrong.
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).
Similarly, 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! We can go on like this.
If we are wrong, as a true scientists, you should either point out the mistakes in our statement or accept it or keep your opinion open subject to further investigation. We cannot blindly accept that Einstein must be right - that is superstition. When you say: "he pioneered a path and I am simply expanding on that path", all you admit is that you have not verified his statements independently, but not only accepted it blindly, but also try to build upon such superstition. We do not follow superstition.
In any case, you admit that "The author hasn't completed the specific details of these two new relativities to give you workable relativities that you can go out and verify". In other words, you wanted to break one mistake into two, in which process you failed. Hence you admit "I don't know."
We never said that "dimensions do not exist without man" nor "putting man in the place of God." That is your interpretation, which is totally wrong. Had you seriously read our essay, you would not have said so. We have said that: "Something makes meaning only if the description remains invariant under multiple perceptions or measurements under similar conditions through a proper measurement system. In communication, as in perception, it is the class or form that remains invariant as a concept. The sequence of sound in a word or signal ceases to exist, but the meaning remains as a concept". Hence we only said that perception makes something meaningful to the observer. We never said that it changes or affects the state of the observable. It exists independently by itself. Thus, dimensions do exist without man. We are waiting for your comment on our essay.
Regards,
basudeba