Essay Abstract

In the 19th century, people have mastered sound waves, electromagnetic waves in the 20th century. The 21st century should be a century of gravitational waves! Newton opened a door to the near space, and we have mastered it. Laplace opened a window in the Grand Universe and the first experimentally estimated that the speed of gravitational interaction of eight orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light. No one has been able to refute the Laplace experiments, and we see Laplace waves on the wall of the Metagalaxy. However, Einstein theory of relativity postulates just closed this window. It's time to have the courage to open the window to the Universe again, as Mankind is challenged by the most important task of creating a Galactic Internet. We have shown that the gravitational field is formed by fields of each atom, thus forming together a metaatom. The total gravitational field of metaatoms has a complex spatial structure, depending on the relative speeds (temperatures) and the distance between gravitating objects. Systems of metaatom form planets, stars, galaxies, and the Metagalaxy. The simplest metaatom is a hydrogen atom, which gravitational field consists of two components: the classical Newtonian gravity acting on a distance of 2.7 ∙ 1020 m (the radius of the galaxy), and 11 orders of magnitude weaker gravitational forces of repulsion, but acting up to distances of 1.1 ∙ 1026 m (radius of the Metagalaxy). Using obtained fundamental macroquantum laws it is possible to develop a new class of devices based on the coherent gravity waves effects for imaging gravitating objects ranging in size from man to Earth as a whole, and also to investigate the gravitational (bio) field of people.

Author Bio

BORN November 29, 1949, Alma-Ata, Kazahstan EDUCATION 1973 Institute of the civil aviation, city Riga, Latvia, speciality - engineer on air avionics 1983 Post-graduate course on the speciality Nuclear Physics, Physics Department of Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus RESEARCH INTERESTS Nuclear physics, high energy physics, condensed matter physics, quantum mechanics, nanotechnologies (nanoelectronics, nanobiology), femtotechnologies, astronomy PhD: technical Sci. No 098306, Moscow, 1987 1989 Director of the Atomic and Molecular Engineering Laboratory 1997-present Lead Scientist of the Consulting Center "Nanobiology" (Minsk, RB) 2003-2010 Lead Scientist of the Netwise Nanovation, GmbH (Switzerland) 2001 Professor of the Institute of Modern Knowledge (Minsk, RB)

Download Essay PDF File

Alex,

You nail the problem of physics with this sentence "Let us remember that the basic laws of physics were obtained experimentally, and to this day they do not follow from any of mathematical models."

For the rest of the essay, well, ..... aahm, ... lets put it this way: we agree that contemporary physics is not on the right track however concerning the alternatives presented we agree to disagree

Dear Alex,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Mean while, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Dear Ilyanok,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

Hi dear Alexander,

Your theme is very interesting to me - I have work on gravity problem also and I think we can talk on this matter. Meantime it is heavy subject to discuss it right here. It will better napisat mne from my essay. I will thankfull to get your opinion to it. Predidushchi paren moshennik, take care!

Sincerely,

George

ESSAY

Dear Sir,

You have presented the Einsteinian view that "gravity acts in the same way on different bodies, giving them the same acceleration regardless of their mass, chemical composition and other properties". Einsteinian space-time curvature calculations were based on vacuum, i.e. on a medium without any gravitational properties (since it has no mass). If a material medium is considered (which space certainly is, since it abounds with energy), 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 case of gravitational field strength or acceleration due to gravity). The concept of tidal force shows that gravity is non-uniform

The equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass is yet to be proved directly by any experiment. An analysis of the experiments of Eötvös about the ratio of gravitational to kinetic mass of a few substances by some scientists yields the result that this ratio for the hydrogen atom, and for the binding energies are equal to that for the neutron with a precision of one part in at least 5.105, and 104 respectively. No conclusion can be drawn about these ratios for the proton and the electron separately.

The indirect methods are questionable because of two reasons. Firstly, it has been accepted that ma = mg. But this equivalence is faulty because F = ma is faulty. After the initial force acts on a body, the body moves at constant velocity due to inertia unless another force is acting on it. In the absence of any other force, the equation will be F=mv and not F = ma. If there is any other continuing force, then it has to be introduced in the equation. Thus, the acceleration and gravity cannot be equated. Hence Einstein had to differentiate between free fall, where the effect of gravity is cancelled by acceleration and constant acceleration, which mimics gravity. But in a case of constant acceleration, who provides the constant force? How? Why?

The concept of length contraction suggested by Einstein is wrong. Two possibilities suggested by Einstein were either to move with the rod and measure its length or take a photograph of the two ends of the moving rod and measure the length in the scale at rest frame. However, the second method, advocated by Einstein, is faulty because if the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to his formula. 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. As a result, gamma is wrong. Hence inertial mass increase is wrong.

The shifting of Mercury's perihelion can be explained by (v/c)^2 radians per revolution, where v is not the escape velocity, but the velocity component induced by Sun's motion in the galaxy, which drags the planets also. Mercury being smallest and closest to the Sun, its effect is most profound. Eddington's experiment about gravitational lensing has been questioned repeatedly. In various threads here, we have proved that equivalence principle is a wrong description of facts.

We have written to S. Perlmutter, B.P. Schmidt and A.G. Riess challenging their theory of dark energy, which we have discussed in various threads here. They could not refute our views. Rather some scientists in their threads have approved our view.

Dark energy is so named because it does not interact with other bodies (hence dark) and it is smooth and persistent (hence not matter, but energy). Since energy is perceived only through its interactions with matter, the term dark energy is an oxymoron. It is said that it does not interact gravitationally - hence dark. But is gravitation an attractive force? No force can physically "pull" - it can only be a "push" from the opposite direction. We will explain magnetic force separately, as its attraction is not universal, but restricted to magnetic substances only. The gravitational interaction keeps the two bodies in a stable orbit around the barycenter, whose position depends upon the ratio of the masses and the distance between the two bodies. If we take the total area within the orbit and distribute the total mass within that area, we will get the average density. The barycenter represents the ratio of masses of the two bodies in terms of this average density. Thus, the barycenter acts as a base or a ground or a background structure for placement of the bodies. Suppose dark energy is something like that?

Maxwell's equations are background invariant. Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. Transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. Since light is a transverse wave, it is background invariant. Einstein's ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell's Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the non-observance of aether drag (as observed in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove the background structure. The so-called non-interacting dark energy may be the background structure.

The universe is not expanding or accelerating, as it is not evident at local galactic scales or less. Had the universe being expanding, such expansion would have been evident in local scales also. Even a spot on the balloon expands. Thus, there is a doubt on the authenticity of the galaxy rotation problem that gave rise to the concept of dark matter. Distant galaxies are rotating around a common galactic center and like the velocities of planets far away from the Sun, their velocities are relatively greater. We can visualize it as a potter's wheel. Compared to a point relatively nearer to the galactic center, the distant objects appear to be moving faster. Since it is a circular orbit, at times they appear as receding while at other times they will appear as approaching. The measured time span is insignificant in cosmic scales.

Our intention is not to criticize your essay, but to provide food for thought. You can visit our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31.

Regards,

basudeba

Alexander,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

Dear Alexander,

I enjoyed reading your essay because it shows a person willing to challenge currently accepted wisdom, even Einstein's, and capable of presenting his ideas clearly and quantitatively.

Some things in your essay are hard to accept - why take Laplace's word about cosmic phenomena - made 200 years ago when even the concept of galaxy was not formed? Equating the speed of gravitation with that of light seems reasonable, particularly as you yourself state that "A priori gravity and electromagnetism are inseparable. This is a manifestation of the same nature!" Why limit the extent of gravity to the galaxy? Astronomical phenomena show there is attraction between different galaxies.

I have my own reasons for refusing Einstein's over-complex description of gravity based on spacetime. In my qualitative 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory also found here I show an ether mechanism for how gravity acts as an optical field of variable index of diffraction (i.e. density). Unfortunately this is just a 'model' but it is one based on examining the experimental phenomena and making a theory to explain them as simply as possible.

I wish you the best in your research.

Vladimir

7 days later

Hello Alexander,

I find your paper intriguing. Like Vladimir, I must commend you fro your boldness to present such a proposal here, but this effort falls short of being a serious research paper on the subject. I can tell you that there are people who are researching some of these matters seriously, or who have research proposals on the table. You may be interested in joining the discussion on this FQXi Forum page regarding a paper "Dimensional reduction in the sky" that discusses the possibility raised by VanFlandern that the speed of gravity is different from that of light (tensor mode vs scalar propagation).

But be advised; researchers would need to develop some serious broadband GW detectors, with a much greater sensitivity than those built to date - to do what you propose. Although Steinhardt stated at the end of his Scientific American article, and in his FFP11 talk, that we need to probe the Gravity Wave Background to really know which Cosmology is correct; most working scientists seem disinclined to seriously question Inflation, and gravity wave physics has to struggle to get any funding at all. Still; there are folks looking to develop this, and some see the possibility for GW communications across vast distances as realistic, once the technical hurtles are overcome.

All the Best,

Jonathan

    Hello again,

    You may also wish to check out my essay, as I too am an author entered in this year's FQXi contest.

    Have Fun!

    Jonathan

    6 days later

    Dear Jonathan!

    Thank you for your comments.

    I examine the issue of the pilot project on the transfer of information in the galaxy. This is a detail in my article Manifesto. Galactic Internet. http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0079

    It is important that on the same frequency of nearest range Pc3 the electromagnetic field of the Earth vibrates, which is in plasmaspheric resonance. Consequently, the energy of wave motion in the outer core of the Earth must be passed to the earth's crust and the ionosphere. This wave can be detected and controlled with a gigantic electrostatic generator, which in his time had manufactured by Tesla. You can also use the existing super-power high frequency transmitters of large area used for the impact on the Earth's ionosphere. For example, a complex HAARP built in the U.S. to study the nature of the ionosphere and the development of the anti-air and missile defense systems, which can be used for our peaceful purposes. Using a microwave generator of the HAARP, we can modulate the frequency of plasmaspheric resonance - 0.057 Hz. Then it will be possible to transmit information with a frequency of 0.0285 Hz. In an hour it will be possible to transmit 100 bits of information, whereas for the year - 0.9 Mb.

    If our model is correct, the Earth's core is a macroquantum system in which gravitational waves are formed along the poles - jets. If such a wave meets on the way the Earth-like planets, it can form a coherent quantum transmitter-receiver system of gravitational waves, similar to that discussed above for our liquid helium.

    Even extend the frame of our imagination. If there is a highly-developed life on the Earth-like planets, and if they set up an intergalactic communication on the principles laid down by us, we can fit into this network.

    As the volume of transmitted information is not very large - 0.9 Mbit, the most valuable information for us will be in the first place to gain knowledge about still undiscovered laws of physics and biology, as well as about clean energy sources and improved communication channels for the transmission of video information. From a biological point of view, of course, the people will be primarily interested in the victory over the disease and prolong life. Perhaps it would be one way of solving the problem of eternal life.

    Of course, we must come together to address these daunting challenges.

    Best regards,

    Alexander

    Dear Alexander. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

    Vladimir

    6 days later

    Dear Alexander,

    That is a very nice essay on gravitation. There is a question that bothers me, if gravity cause attraction why does earth move near to sun at perihelion and gravity allows it to move away at aphelion, instead of moving nearer and spiraling inwards to sun? Have you seen my essay. Kindly take a look and rate if you like it.

    Best regards,

    Akinbo

      Alexander,

      I agree with your analysis and conclusion that mathematical models alone are insufficient to form an understanding of our physical universe. I found your insight and conclusion well in keeping with the findings I have obtained from a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. So I found it easy to rate your essay a 10/10 and I hope you will be willing to return the favor of rating my essay in kind.

      Best wishes and good luck in the competition.

      Manuel

      Dear Akinbo,

      All the answers to your questions can be found in my article Macroquantum Effects in Astronomy http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0111/0111183.pdf

      With best wishes, Alexander Ilyanok

      9 days later

      Dear Alexander,

      I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

      I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

      You can find the latest version of my essay here:

      http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

      (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

      May the best essays win!

      Kind regards,

      Paul Borrill

      paul at borrill dot com

      Write a Reply...