The Idea of Motion Transformations as the Foundation of the Laws of Nature by re castel

Joe, if you can edit your entries here, you must be doing real well. And I can only congratulate you. But here's according to your suggestion regarding the url.

The following links to a page that contains a brief explanation regarding the main ideas in my book/eBook : A Summary of the Propositions of Kinematic Relativity.

The page also contains answers for questions you may have regarding my FQXi essay.

-

On the commerce thing, basudeba, those who submitted an FQXi essay are very likely in here for the money. And most of us are in here to promote our ideas.

You don't have to buy anything at my website. The postings there are essentially FYI and mostly for free; and they are pretty much in support of my submitted essay.

As for the reply you want, I deemed it polite to simply ignore your rhetorical question regarding the Galilean transformation that I explained in my essay. Please try to remember the purpose of why we do the approximations in the calculus of our physics.

-

Please remember that the great scientists (Galilei, Newton, Lorentz, Einstein, and others) deeply considered the transformation equations - i.e., the Galilean 1-d, the Lorentz 2-d, and now the 3-d transformation of which I think I am the first to have proponed with a deeper focus and interpretation in relation to the suggestion of a mathematical formula for the genesis of the cosmos.

Anybody who has got sense understands that the basic transformation equations are principal in our interpretations of the laws of nature.

-

The transformation equations may look simple. But, hey, even the great basudeba missed the necessary approximation.

-

Although some are here to make an honest offering at the altar in the temple of knowledge, don't let's make any pretense of the sort of indignation that some here try to bore us with.

Enjoy!

That post sure looks 'terse'. But I was smiling and laughing while writing it.

I guess I must do it for those who asked the questions.

Computing for the unprimed in the 1-d Galilean transformation, we have the equations x=x'/(1-v/c) or t=t'/(1-v/c), or simply t=t'. Since the classical scientists consider space and time as non-transforming absolutes and since they consider the motion or velocity transformations, the space or time variables are replaced with the velocity variables u' and u that represent the differing velocities as viewed in the primed and unprimed frames of reference. The u' is the initial velocity that is equal to the velocity c - which is any velocity considered; and v is the added velocity.

The c variable basically represents the reference value for the velocity transformation; the c variable is the common denominator for the velocity addition according to the transformation factor (1-v/c), which is (c/c-v/c). And so, as suggested by the Galilean transformation factor, the c variable is any velocity considered and that becomes the reference for the velocity transformation on account of the added velocity v.

In the 2-d Lorentz transformation, the c variable represents the velocity of light - not just any velocity. And according to Maxwell the velocity of light c remains the same in all frames of reference. So, in the Lorentz transformations the Galilean idea of velocity transformations is no longer valid. The u' and u variables that are respectively used to represent the initial and resultant velocities as accounted by the Galilean transformation are therefore no longer generally definitive.

Einstein apparently discovered that the mass variables m and m' may be admitted by substitution into the transformations equation, instead of the u and u' variables. The substitution indicated that other physical transformations occur instead of the velocity transformations. And, notably, a tacit premise is that space and time are not transformed as suggested by the fact that the space and time variables are removed and replaced by the mass variables. The equations show that the mass phenomenon and the electromagnetic phenomenon are involved in the transformations and not space or time.

We know that electromagnetic waves are forms of motion. And the transformation factor indicates that mass is clearly expressed in terms of c2/c2 which is an expression that involves the electromagnetic phenomenon. I have argued that both the mass phenomenon and the electromagnetic phenomenon are constructs of motion. This is why I argue that only the motion transformation is valid and that the arbitrary space and time transformations of Einstein's theory of relativity is invalid.

The special relativity theory is apparently alright because it is mainly about the motion transformations that involve the mass phenomenon and the electromagnetic phenomenon. But general relativity that purports the 'motion' and transformations of space and time is illogical.

The motion transformation is true in the case of the Galilean velocity transformations. The motion transformation is also true in the case of the Lorentz transformations by which we have special relativity as accorded by the 'relativistic' mass formula and Einstein's mass-energy relation expressed by the famed formula. So, we have two points of proof (the Galilei-Newton transformations and the Lorentz-Einstein transformations) for motion transformation.

However, Einstein's general relativity - i.e., the relativity of the purported motion of space, the relativity of the purported motion of time, and the relativity of the motion of motion - is one grand gift of confusion that Einstein left us with.

I think the valid formulations may all be interpreted in terms of the transformations of motion. If we morefully embrace the fact that in the first place the defining premise is that of the consideration for the motion transformations, which is why in the transformation equations the space and time variables are removed and replaced with the variables (e.g., u, u', m, m', E, E') that represent motion constructs, I am convinced that we will find that it is all about motion transformations. I am convinced that we will find that our physics is all about motion transformations if we will seriously consider motion transformations in the strict sense.

I have detailed my explanations regarding the 1-d, 2-d, and 3-d transformations that occur in nature. You can find my explanations in my book/ebook, my website, and in my FQXi essay. However, a radical paradigm shift is necessary in order to allow the appropriate understanding of the new scientific views that I propone.

All that's needed is a formal appreciation of the idea of simply the motion transformations - the pure kinematic relativity.

I don't know if it will happen with the help of FQXi. I doubt if the reputable minds of FQXi (e.g., Tegmark, Aguirre, Hawking, Guth, Smolin, Weinberg, and etc.) ever had a glimpse of my work. It seems that they listen ONLY to what they themselves are saying.

It seems that only a few here read my book/ebook and the other things that I have written. But, I'm hoping for the best.

Regards.

castel/www.kinematicrelativity.com

Huh?...

Not one criticism regarding the GENESIS FORMULA! The scientific community remains in stunned silence! :-) Why?

Where is Smolin, Susskind, Rees, Guth, Velinkin, Linde, Penrose, Hawking, Tegmark, Aguirre, and the whole gang?

Are they so high up the altar in the temple of knowledge that they cannot consider answering the challenge regarding the GENESIS FORMULA?

The math is simple. The interpretation and premise given are straightforward. The suggestions from the GENESIS FORMULA regarding the structure of the cosmos and the nature and origin of gravity are clear.

Just say what's wrong or right about the GENESIS FORMULA and why.

Come on, gang! It's the least you could do for those who look up to you...

castel

Akinbo,

Thanks for the comments.

But, your second paragraph is problematic. You seem to have failed to notice the differences in the appropriate applications of the 1-d Galilean transformation, the 2-d Lorentz transformation, and the 3-d Castel transformation equations. I suggest you recheck their appropriate applications.

As for space, I like keeping it simple. Space simply gets occupied. Getting occupied is its sole function. Basic kinematics reveals that motions move motions, and the objects in motion (i.e., mass) are themselves kinetic constructs. Motions occur on the substance that occupies space. There is no such thing as the motion of space. The idea of the relative motion of space is an illusion - an ill usage and vision.

I wish you well.

Castel