Alternative Models of Reality

Akinbo,

"By using a question to reply my question, "What is it (mass)", I assume you are searching for the answer which is okay. We are all searching for answers."

No I know the answer. I know better than to give an answer in isolation. It would be a wasted effort. I ask the question of anyone to see if there is understanding of what I have written about fixing physics. Both the why and the how. There is no marketplace for solutions to problems that don't exist. If a reader doesn't understand my description of the problem, they will dismiss answers. The problem is that mass and temperature remain unexplained properties. The response to this statement is that others, physicists and laymen, either scoff or put forward what they believe are explanations of what is mass and what is temperature.

It is a symptom of how far afield that physics has drifted that it has become unknown that mass and temperature are properties that lack definitions. The meaning of the word 'definition' in physics has been lost and replaced with the non-technical, commonplace meaning. Physicists no longer know that they don't know what mass and temperature is. Laymen are comfortable with this change to a weakened standard. They, just like professional theorists have done, join the rush to propose their high level guesses about the overall nature of the universe.

"Your equation F/m = a is your starting point I presume. What is 'Force'?"

That is an unanswerable question at this point. I am not proposing what mass or force are. I am showing how to learn what empirical evidence is revealing to us about them so that I can give direct empirical support for my explanations of them. Unlike Relativity theory that lack direct empirical support, I want my work to be tied to direct empirical evidence. One step at a time please until the fundamentals fall naturally into place. Fundamental unity is the prize for proceeding carefully.

It must be known what mass is before it can be known what force is. Please understand that I am aware of the obvious. it is obvious that others believe they know the answers. Temperature is a measure of hot and cold isn't it. It is a measure of average molecular kinetic energy isn't it? It is an indicator of the distribution of molecular kinetic energy isn't it. It is a number on a thermometer isn't it? It is the ratio of molecular kinetic energy to thermodynamic entropy isn't it? It is obvious that others do not see a problem. But, with answers like these how could the problem not be seen by some at least?

None of these indirect answers tells us what temperature is. Sure I have the answers, but, putting them out front before others even know there is a serious problem in physics that could change physics to something very different from what it is today. Learning what mass is could effect all of physics in a drastic way. Lastly to head off the usual "I know what mass is. It is this or that ... " Or as Steve Dufourny asks "Is it really necessary to debate the fundamentals?" The answer is yes of course until they are known. There are at least three fundamental properties that remain unexplained. Their units remain indefinable units. They are something that most claim to know what they are even while they remain indefinable properties.

I will know who knows what any one of them are because that person will know how to define their units. Until then, this is the stuff that theoretical speculation thrives on. The f/m=a question is my way of finding out if any others see the problem. Your response tells me that you do not see the problem. By the way, the answers lie dormant, in storage, here at FQXi.org as well as at other sites on the Internet. Everyone who comes here does so to teach the very important knowledge that they have acquired.

I like Google books and so my review shows up there and I consider it five bucks well spent. I love your jocular and intuitive style and do not want to be harsh, but you know that you do need to face the music as it were...

My whole review did not fit on Google books, so here it is...

This author has a very engaging and jocular style and this makes for a very enjoyable read even though the author is completely wrong and otherwise confused about many things about the universe. The author seems so sure about many things and yet there are many facts that are patently wrong in this book.

However, despite the many wrong facts, another nice thing about the book is that it's many arguments are intuitive and there is very little math to muddy the already complex nature of what the universe is like. The author's notion that the universe comprises a discrete aether and discrete action has much merit.

The author repeats two fundamental notions as postulate or axiom X and hypothesis 3. However, in science, an axiom is only useful if it is self evident and a hypothesis is only useful in science if it can be tested by measurement. Postulate X does not seem self evident and the author does not provide any experiment to either validate or falsify hypothesis 3. Unfortunately, the book is riddled with this kind of flawed logic and misinterpretation of many famous experiments.

Hypothesis 3: The only motion that actually takes place in the universe is a movement of places from somewhere to nowhere and from nowhere to somewhere, and not fundamentally a movement of one place to another place.

If you do not understand what hypothesis 3 means you are not alone. It is clear that somewhere is a measurable place that exists in the universe. Nowhere, however, does not seem to exist in the universe and therefore there is no measurement of nowhere. Without a measurement of nowhere, there is no test for this hypothesis and so this statement is simply an axiom. However, including unmeasurable objects such as nowhere from outside the universe means that hypothesis 3 can explain anything and therefore has little value in predicting the action of objects in the universe.

Postulate X: The non-zero dimensional point does not have an eternal existence, but can appear and disappear spontaneously or when induced to do so by physical law.

If postulate X does not make sense, you are not alone. A postulate or axiom should be self-evident and not subject to interpretation. What is a zero-dimensional point? A non-zero dimensional point requires several axioms of its own just to understand. Since the universe does not have an eternal existence, no point in the universe has an eternal existence, so that statement is self evident. It is certainly not self evident that points can appear and disappear spontaneously from somewhere to nowhere and there should be a measurement to show this is the case. Magical appearance and disappearance of objects simply does not make a good axiom.

There are many examples of flawed analysis. For example, the author states that particle exchange cannot possibly bond two objects together since momentum is conserved in collisions. While it is certainly true that two or more colliding objects cannot bond without losing energy, but if energy and momentum are taken away by a other particles including photons as heat, two objects can bond. Likewise, two colliding objects can bond by exchange of a third particle as long as the excess energy of that collision is emitted by other particles.

Another example of flawed logic is that the author suggests that the Sagnac interferometer is similar to that of the Michelson-Morley. Since the Sagnac is a ring interferometer and Michelson-Morley was a linear interferometer, they actually work on very different principles and measure very different displacements. While neither interferometer can detect linear motion, both interferometers can detect rotation and ring interferometers like the Sagnac are especially good for detecting rotation. Ring interferometers are therefore very useful for inertial navigation while linear interferometers are not useful for navigation at all.

Yet another example of flawed logic is in extensive discussions about relativity that ignore the GPS satellite system that shows the effects of relativity including the slowing of light in gravity. The author does not discuss any of the modern examples of gravity effects on light including the radiotelescopes. All radiotelescopes need correction due to the gravity of the sun and also of Jupiter and the book does not discuss these well known effects at all.

As a result of these and many other flaws, the actual value of the arguments is lost. There is simply an overwhelming amount of data that supports the notions of relativity for constant light velocity, mass energy equivalence, and gravity lensing. Arguing that the substantial body of knowledge and measurements is somehow in error seems like jousting the windmills of Don Juan.

Despite the book's many deep flaws, though, I did enjoy reading it and would recommend it to a person that is knowledgeable enough to recognize its many flaws. Books like this help me organize my own thinking about the universe and therefore help me to avoid the same kinds of rabbit holes that dominate much of current thinking about the universe.

Since I already know where the FXQi gang are coming from, I am much less interested in what they say than what the fringe says. I find the fringe much more interesting...

Thank you Steve Agnew. I accept your criticism and welcome any debates. I asked you about Planck density and I will be posting something on the Alternative Models of Cosmology forum to promote my ideas.

Two of your statements caught my eye in your post because they seem contradictory, at least on the surface:

"effects of relativity including the slowing of light in gravity", and

"the notions of relativity for constant light velocity"

I am sure you know that gravitational influence is not the same everywhere. Strong in some areas and weak in some. Assuming that gravity slows light, then the slowing of light will vary from place to place, and by implication of this light velocity cannot be said to be constant from place to place showing an incompatibility between your two statements above. Einstein said as much and seems to agree with my view I quoted him in the book.

By the way, it is also now available on Amazon.

Again, many thanks. I appreciate.

Gravity slows light...just like all materials slow the speed of light by a dielectric effect, gravity works in the same manner. I like to use those terms since they make sense for an aether universe like aethertime where particle exchange bonds all matter and from which space and time emerge or even an aether universe like yours where space still seems to exist first of all.

However, you do know that in GR, gravity shrinks space and that is why light appears to slow down near massive objects like the sun. The nice thing about GR is that the master equation for gravity is complete and validated within the two limits of black hole event horizon and the Planck limit.

The unfortunate thing about GR is that its determinate geodesic paths are inconsistent with quantum uncertainty. Quantum gravity has an exchange particle but the uncertainty of particle exchange is inconsistent with the infinitely divisible spacetime of GR. Therefore stringy and loopy theories add new hidden dimensions to try and make GR and quantum work together, but there are no ways to measure hidden dimensions, just like your nowhere points. Hidden dimensions, just like a nowhere point, can therefore explain anything that you want.

Your nice intuitive logic is not necessarily always wrong, but you do need to be cautious about cherry picking quantum results and GR results and then trying to make sense out of those comparisons. Maudlin's work is rife with this kind of befuddlement and so there are a lot of very smart people right there with you in your befuddlement. It is interesting that Maudlin does not seem to get invited to the FQXi bashes despite his having won some essay contests.

The FQXi elite needs to be careful that they do not simply produce echos of their own pet beliefs. They really need to challenge the norm and push back more and hear more alternate cosmologies from qualified scientists. I would like to hear more about the shrinking universe cosmology of Chris Wetterich, for example.

A shrinking instead of expanding universe is a very worthwhile alternative cosmology that is completely different from a big bang approach.

Georgina - all forces get more strong as they travel for the same reasons but there are extras reasons for some forces - gravitons get more energy and momentum as they travel because gravitons make time and space have a shape, gravitons influence the vacuum and gravitons create attraction for positive energy particles - gravitons influence the vacuum like gravitons make light slow down around the sun - all forces get more strong as they travel and they do not decrease 1/rr - I think Einstein did not like to put together time and space - I guess a lot of people think Einstein wanted to put together time and space - gravitons change the energy of time and space - as distance from mass increases energy of time increases - think about air around the earth - at the surface of the earth there is a lot of air and as you go up density of air decreases - Einstein wanted shape of time and space around mass to create gravity - all people mistakes - shape of time and space creates a force in a direction that is opposite to gravity - shape of time and space around mass creates a force that is away from mass it fights against gravity it helps to create inertia - search internet - least action - I have a twitter account there is more information about this - I tell people I do not want any person to follow me but they can look at it - if a person tries to find my twitter account they need to avoid a fake account by a psychopath using my name - search internet Tom van Flander

Steve Agnew,

" ... that is how I define all of reality; with matter and with action."

I haven't followed your definition. I will look for it. I don't see how your statement accomplishes your goal. Matter matters not. It does not show up in equations. The properties of matter matter. They, actually their units, represent matter and whatever its relationship to reality is. Your choice of action looks to be a choice of effects over cause. Isn't cause the source of reality? I will have to look back at your messages. if this message is off the mark because of my lack of knowing what is your case for reality, then I apologize.

There should exist a multiverse based on combinations of c and h (speed of light and Planck constant) that result in favorable conditions for universes to form. Some of those universes may contain particles, others do not. If true, it would be possible to find or create dual universe fermions and bosons that would serve as energy pathways between universes. A gamma ray of energy from our universe might strike and be absorbed by a dual universe particle. The energy would leave this universe, travel into another universe with c' = 10c, h' = 1/2h causing the photon to split into two photons that fly away at ten times the speed of light.

Every universe shares characteristics of general relativity and quantum mechanics. The only differences would be a different set of constants.

Hello everyone

i am new here and want to know about some physics topics please tell me here

Dissertation Writing Service

Dear James,

Generally, the effect that is called mass is the resultant motion output(s) of an interaction between the angular motion components of two or more entities that interact with each other. As an example, an energy photon contains two basic motion components. The first is a simple linear motion component at the motion amplitude level that is commonly called the speed of light. It is responsible for the photon's forward motion in its direction of travel. The second is its angular motion component at ninety degrees to its direction of travel. It is a cyclical motion that gets its directional reversal by interacting with the ends of the fourth dimension in which it travels. It travels to one end of the fourth dimension and then its direction is reversed so that it travels to the other end and its direction is then reversed again to maintain its continual cyclical motion. When it is at one end of the fourth dimension, it is just outside of our three dimensional structure. As it begins to move away from the end it begins to enter our three dimensional system. It reaches full overlap with the lower three dimensions when it is at the center of the fourth dimension. As it continues to travel it begins to pass out of interaction with the lower three dimensions and completely exits just as it reaches the other side of the fourth dimension. It then does the same thing again only except it travels in the opposite direction in the fourth dimension this time. This cycle is repeated indefinitely in the absence of an interaction with another entity.

During an interaction with another entity it exhibits a dynamic mass effect that depends on the state of two conditions at the point of interaction. First is its fourth dimensional motion amplitude (speed or amount of motion it contains). The greater its fourth dimensional motion is, the more motion it can transfer during the interaction and, thus the greater is the mass effect that it exhibits either in its change of motion of the entity it is interacting with and/or the less it is moved by the other entity. This greater motion level also causes the fourth dimensional motion to travel back and forth between the ends of the very short fourth dimension faster, so that its cyclical frequency is greater and it travels less distance in its forward linear direction during one cycle, thus its wave length is shorter. The second condition or variable is how much of the fourth dimensional motion is within our three dimensional system at the point of interaction. If the point of interaction occurs when the motion is at one end of the fourth dimension, it is completely out of the three dimensional system, so no motion can be transferred and no interaction occurs. The maximum motion transfer occurs when the motion is completely in the three dimensional system. From this you can see that since the amount of motion that a given photon can transfer to another entity can vary from zero to a maximum that depends on its fourth dimensional motion amplitude, its effect on the other entity and the effect that the other entity has on it during a given interaction is dynamic or variable in nature. This gives a very basic view of how the mass effect of an energy photon works.

Matter particles are more complex because in addition to the above structure, matter particles contain another angular motion component. They contain a fifth dimensional motion that feeds motion into the lower three dimensions in a sequential pattern, so that the energy photon contained within the matter particle travels a three dimensional curved path that curves back upon itself creating a cyclical enclosed path. Since the photon is already traveling at the speed of light the additional motion that is transferred into each of the lower three dimensions causes motion to be transferred into the fourth dimension to maintain the photon's speed at the speed of light or C. The end result is that the only change is the angular directional change to create the enclosed path structure of the matter particle. If the fourth dimensional wavelength fits properly inside of the enclosed path the proper angular motion component is present to allow the extra motion that has been transferred to the fourth dimension to be transferred back into the fifth dimension, thus completing the interdimensional motion flow cycle of the matter particle and it is stable. If the wavelength does not properly fit, the extra motion remains in the fourth dimension and the matter particle loses its fifth dimensional motion and it, thus changes into an energy photon. The enclosed path structure of the matter particle creates an angular motion component that operates in all directions about the matter particle's enclosed path during an interaction, thus you can get the same effect no matter from what direction an entity approaches toward the matter particle. Since the matter particle contains this angular motion component even when the enclosed path structure is not traveling, but is stationary, its mass effect during an interaction remains as a static or stationary mass. Of course it is greater if the enclosed path also contains a motion component that causes it to travel in some direction, as that motion can also be transferred during an interaction. During an interaction with another entity, the actual effects that occur depend not only on the state of the fourth dimensional motion amplitude and its overlap of the lower three dimensions as mentioned above, but also depends on the position of the matter particle's structural point in its enclosed path at the point of interaction. It is these things and some other things that have to do with the sub-energy fields that are generated by the matter particle to both travel through it (the internal field) and also travel around the particle in spherical high and low density flow patterns (the external field structure), etc. that account for the various different outputs that can occur during an interaction with another entity. The probabilities of each output occurring is also determined by the range of motions of these things that can allow the interaction to occur. I hope this is of some help to you.

Sincerely,

Paul

Hi Paul,

Thank you for the time and effort you put into sharing your views. I was asking questions so for a few messages it probably looks as if I am seeking to learn answers. I have the answers to my questions and have put those answers to work producing results, many of which have been written about here at FQXi.org both in the forum discussion context and in the essay contests. My purpose for asking questions of Akinbo rather than giving answers is, besides the fact that my answers have mostly been given, that he doesn't see the problem that I solved. There is no marketplace for solutions to problems that don't exist. One has to see the problem in order to understand and appreciate the solution. The problem is that mass is not defined in physics. It is in a perpetual state of being a fundamental indefinable property. Definitions used to be held to strict, clear standards which I have quoted here.

In today's physics, definitions are loose and similar to the types that layman would make use of. Unfortunately for today's physics, their equations cannot tolerate their loose use of definitions. The penalty paid is mathematical results that aren't accurately portraying the properties of the universe. Mass is a principle victim of misrepresentations. Theoretical physics plays with mass and talks of mass and works with mass and explains mass, yet all the while, mass remains an undefined property meaning it is an unexplained property. Unexplained properties are subject to theorists guesses and imaginative substitutes that appear to work mathematically. Unfortunately mathematics can't correct that which theorists will not themselves correct.

My point is this: I don't subscribe to answers that are permanently out of our reach. The descriptions of mass, and any other property, that rely upon dimensions that are inaccessible to us, and, actions that are not consistent with those we observe in empirical evidence, are not the kind that seek to learn. My work involves removing empirically unsupported theoretical intrusions into physics equations and returning them to their empirical forms, so that we may learn that which empirical evidence is revealing to us.

It is empirical evidence that informs us about everything that we can learn about the mechanical operation of the universe. The failure of physicists to properly define mass in the traditional manner that survived in text books up until at least the 70's, is one of the main reasons why physics theories must search for their answers in imagined places. We disagree in our approach and understanding of the operation of the universe. Thank you though for sharing your view and attempting to help me to understand it.

Duel universe particles would exist in this space-time universe and a second space-time universe. The secondary universe may be pre-big bang or post big bang. A pre-big bang secondary universe would be curled up into the dual universe particle. Properly stimulated, it could manifest its properties of the rolled up universe into our universe. That means you could generated superluminal fields in this universe. You could also create what are called meta particles. Meta particles would normally exist in another universe with a different speed of light and Planck constant, but they could be caused to exist in our universe.

Dear James,

I am sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I wanted to look at your papers on FQXI to get an idea what your concepts are and I also had many other things going on at the same time. I do see that you understand the concept that the most basic constituents of the structure of the universe can only be rightly defined in units of their own quantity, amount or size, etc. and other entities that are derived from or are just relationships to those basic structures can then be defined in terms of these most basic structures.

We certainly both agree that one of these basic structures is space and that the measurement of an amount or extent of space is what we call distance and have divided it up into units like meters or feet, etc. Space also has other aspects that we can readily observe, such as three bidirectional dimensions that are joined together at ninety degrees to each other into a network that allows an entity in space to travel equally freely in any combination of those 6 directions. Space is basically the place where other entities can exist, move, and interact with space and one another.

This brings me to the concept that the next most basic structure is that of the entities that occupy space. Man currently tends to consider there to be 3 types of such entities, which are matter particles, energy photons, and fields. When I looked at the observational data, however, I found that it is clear that matter particles can be changed into energy photons (example, electron positron annihilation with low kinetic energy interaction) and energy photons can be changed into angular or linear motions (example, photon interaction with an electron in an atom that raises the electron to a higher level and photon interaction with a free electron which changes the electron's linear motion amplitude or speed). In both cases the photon disappears and is said to be absorbed by the electron. Since the only change in the electron is its amount of motion, it is obvious that what was the photon has been changed into the observed motion. If photons can be changed into motions then it is reasonable to consider that they are composed of motions that are in some way stored in such a way that it produces the photon. By extension, it is reasonable to consider that a matter particle is also composed of motions. If this is true, it means that motion(s) should also be able to produce photons and matter particles. This has also been observed. Example, An electron in an atom can change from a higher level or orbit in the atom to a lower one and in the process its total kinetic motion decreases. This freed up motion then generates or creates an energy photon, which then travels off into space at the speed of light. When two matter particles with great relative kinetic energy interact they can produce many matter particles that contain much more mass than the original two particles had. It has been demonstrated that the kinetic energy of the resultant particles is less than that of the original two particles by an amount that is equal to the amount that is necessary to produce the increased mass of the resultant particles compared to the mass of the original two particles. This means that this kinetic energy which is another way of saying motion has been converted into matter particles. These things are not hard to understand from the observational data. From this it is easy to see that motion is the next most basic entity and that all of the matter particles, energy photons, and fields are composed of motions in some way. If we start with simple motions because they are the easiest to understand, the next question that one is led to from this is: how do you construct an energy photon from simple motion(s)?

Simple motions possess only a few properties, which are:

1. A continual change of position.

2. The amount of motion it contains or its motion amplitude. This determines how far it will change its motion to in comparison to another motion that is chosen to be a standard motion.

3. Its direction of travel.

A simple motion can read its direction of travel to allow it to change its position in the right direction, but cannot access its direction of travel to change it (read only). It can only be changed as the result of an interaction. It can read its motion amplitude information and use that information to generate its amount of change of motion, but it cannot access it to change its motion amplitude (read only). Again this can only change due to an interaction. It can read its position information and can also change it. (read and write access). As mentioned above the changes that it makes to its position information are controlled by its motion amplitude and direction data.

So how do you use such simple motions to build an energy photon? The first part is rather easy. All energy photons travel in a single direction (each has its own direction, which is not the same as all other photons' directions) at the same motion amplitude, which is called the speed of light or C. This can be done by a single simple motion, although there is the question as to why they all travel at the same motion amplitude. The second part is harder. Each photon possesses a cyclical angular motion that operates at 90 degrees to its direction of travel. The problem is that cyclical motions must periodically reverse their direction of travel in order to return to the beginning point of their cycle and then again to begin the next cycle. This can only occur as a result of periodic interactions of some kind to change the motion's stored directional data. A simple motion cannot do this by itself. It is, however, required to make an energy photon. Since an energy photon can possess this motion even when it is traveling through empty space it must not be a result of interactions with other entities. Moreover if it was due to some interactions with some type of unknown and as yet unobserved entity, it would be expected that such entities would not be uniformly spaced and all traveling at the same motion amplitude so as to produce cycles that are always the same frequency and wavelength, but would be randomly spaced and would likely be moving around so as to produce cycles of varying lengths and frequencies. The easiest answer to this problem that I could see was the use of a small fourth dimension. The Fourth dimensional motion could travel back and forth in that dimension and interact with the ends of the dimension to reverse its motion to produce its cyclical motion. One problem with this concept is that the motion would instantaneously change its direction at each end of the dimension and then travel through the dimension at a single motion amplitude. This would create a cyclical motion with a square wave form, but photons have a sign wave form. If the motion is not always in our three dimensional world, but gradually enters and once it is completely in begins to gradually exit it, the sign wave form is created. This is just a way to explain the observed data concerning how energy photons work. Of course, if you can produce a better way please tell me about it. I am, of course, looking for a way that does not use such things as forces that cannot be explained as to how the work, etc. The way that I have given can do so. It can also explain why energy photons generally all travel at the speed of light because this can be viewed as the speed threshold at which motion is transferred from the lower three dimensions to the fourth dimension and vice versa.

This opens up the concept of another type of particle, which I call a sub-energy particle. It consists of a single simple motion that travels at or below the speed of light. If motion is added to it so that it would travel faster than the speed of light, that extra motion is transferred to the fourth dimension and it becomes an energy photon. Individually sub-energy particles have very little effect on energy photons or matter particles because linear motion even at the speed of light has little effect in interactions as can be observed in the very weak interactions of very low frequency photons, which still travel at the speed of light. It is the angular motion components that generate most of the interaction effects. Large numbers of sub-energy particles can be entrained in and by matter particles and under enough combined pressure they can interact. They are what all forces are composed of. As an example, in an atom the electrons travel centered on a low pressure sphere between two high pressure sub-energy spheres. If extra motion is added to the electron it tries to move up and increases its pressure on the high pressure sub-energy sphere above it. If the added motion is great enough it will pass through the sphere and settle in a low pressure sphere higher up above the nucleus of the atom. Since this higher up position is above the natural level it would be in due to its mass, etc. it will tend to be pulled back down causing it to place greater pressure on the high density sphere below it. This extra pressure can allow an interaction to occur between the electron and a sub-energy particle in the high density sphere below it and transfer enough motion to that sub-energy particle to cause it to be changed into an energy photon that carries the extra motion away from the electron which then goes back down to its normal level. This explains the appearance of energy photons without the need for weird vacuum states of space, etc. and also explains the structure of fields in a way that easily explains the causes and effects of their behavior.

The next problem is how to change an energy photon into a matter particle. Matter particles possess a frequency and wave length effect similar to energy photons, so it could be that a matter particle contains an energy photon in it. The main difference between them is that the photon always travels at the speed of light in a linear direction while a matter particle can travel at any speed from zero up to about the speed of light and the photon possesses only a dynamic variable mass that operates at ninety degrees to its direction of travel while a matter particle possesses a static mass effect that continues to exist even when the matter particle is at rest and it operates at ninety degrees to all directions about the particle. The question then is how do you change the observed effects from those observed in a photon to those seen in a matter particle? The easiest answer that I have found is to add another motion that causes the photon to take a curved path that encloses upon itself to create the matter particle. This path must be three dimensional in order to make the mass effect the same in all directions. The result is a change from traveling in some direction at the speed of light to traveling at the speed of light around the enclosed path. This generates great angular motion which operates in all directions about the matter particle to create the static mass effect, so it solves both problems. This motion must be cyclical, which means it must periodically change direction in all three dimensions (not in all at the same time) and it must vary in amplitude in a sign wave pattern. The motions introduced into each of the three dimensions must also be out of phase with each other in such a way as to produce the enclosed path structure. Again I used another (fifth) dimension to explain this motions operation. Maybe you can do better. Since it is not yet time for man to know how the fifth vector works in detail I have kept this part of the explanation vague and will not go into great detail about it.

My intent is to produce a model of the structure of the universe that explains the observed data in a way that can be completely understood and that produces the observed causes and effects without relying on concepts that are vague or don't make logical sense, etc. Instead of considering matter particles to be point objects, but at the same time possess angular motion (as observed) called spin which does not make any sense because a point particle would possess a point about which a spin could occur, but has nothing to spin about that point, I not only show how it can have spin, but also show how you can convert one type of particle into another one and even how fields work. I use two extra dimensions to do it, but I do not need multiverses, space that is not truly space, wave functions that must be observed to cause them to collapse to allow anything to happen, unexplained multiple results from interactions or unexplained probabilities of each of them occurring, etc. It breaks everything down to being composed of simple motions. Remember that all of the theories and math models are just at best a model that closely approximates reality. We cannot observe all of reality in such a way as to fully understand every aspect of it. If you can explain as much as I have about how things are structured without the two extra dimensions, please show me your way of doing it.

I must admit that I do not consider time to be a basic structural constituent, but just a relationship between distance and motion. It is just a way to compare one motion with another one. Its unit of seconds is one sixtieth of a minute, which is one sixtieth of an hour which is one twenty fourth of a day, which is roughly a measure of the motion of any particle of the earth through one complete cycle of its motion about the axis of the earth. It is much easier to just pick any convenient motion amplitude to be the standard motion amplitude and then compare all other motions with it. If you want to stick to the day as your standard motion amplitude then its motion amplitude would be 1 unit of motion amplitude and a motion that would travel around the earth twice during one standard day unit would have 2 units of motion amplitude etc. It makes things much simpler to understand. In this way you are looking at the amount, size, or quantity of motions defined in their own natural units, which is appropriate since motions are a basic constituent of the universe and are the entities which occupy space and interact with each other and with space.

Sincerely,

Paul

very beautiful reasoning dear Jedis of the Sphere

this is my theory - gravity waves going through space will change the size and shape of things and there will be a lot of things changing like mass electric charge all forces magnetic moment - because of this LIGO will not work - I do not know if I am the first person to say some of these things Kurt Stocklmeir

An alternative model of reality--

1. Roger Penrose in The Road to Reality emphasizes the importance of and wonders about the meaning of complex numbers in the basic equations of physics. The first section in the attached addresses his question.

2. Erwin Shrodinger raised questions about the identity of a particle, which is not covered by his equation. The second section presents such an equation.

3. Bohm and Hiley (The Undivided Universe) describe "active information" and "the holomovement." Active information is here described in terms of game theory, based on a game much studied in the laboratory. The holomovement is modeled by a stream that emerges from a non-wellfounded set.

4. Measurement of consciousness is an issue raised elsewhere on FQXI. Observation of the beginning and ending of self is suggested by a Petri net model of a stream-- as above, modeled by a non-wellfounded set. Which suggests a hypothesis that could be tested in a good neuro-imaging lab, one experienced with laboratory animals.

The model is here.

Hi Kurt,

do you mean through space or space-time? Do you mean the distribution of EM radiation will be affected altering the size and shape of the images produced from the information, or the size and shape of material objects will change? Why do you say charge and forces and magnetic moments will change?

Einstein's theory of Gravity has no place for Gravitational Waves

One year after the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) instrument's discovered Gravitational Waves, the LIGO scientists still have not provided the answer for this question: "What are the Gravitational waves MADE OF?" or "When someone talks of waves, the instant response should always be, "Waves of what?", as Charles Scurlock put it.

So, as of today, the basic nature of LIGO Gravitational Waves is still a mystery.

Actually, this widely and cheerfully accepted discovery creates much more mysteries and myths that need to be addressed. This GW, for example, is acting - or moving, precisely - against the Laws of Physics.

Throwing a big rock into water, we create waves that would certainly move toward the shore. But if we dig a hole at the bottom of the lake that immediately sucks water in - something similar to the black hole - the waves created, if any, would move in the opposite direction, toward the hole, not the shore.

The illustration provided by LIGO artist shows it well.

But the LIGO's two black holes - while merging and combining their sucking power - suddenly generate waves that move away from the holes and toward the shore, or in this case the LIGO instrument that is 1.3 billion light years away from where they were born.

Another mystery is the unbelievable capacity of the LIGO instrument.

http://www.einsteinerrs.com/Attachment #1: Einsteins_theory_of_Gravity_has_no_place_for_Gravitational_Waves_N.doc