Dear Professor Kayser,

Please find my comments to the more topical part of your reply here.

I just skimmed through your essay rather than attentively reading it, and I am largely agreeing with you. Because you maintain that Copernicus was born in Silesia I looked into http://polskiinternet.com/english/nicolascopernicus.html and found confirmed that he was born in Thorn (Torun) as Mikolaj, son of Koppernigk and Watzenrode.

Interestingly, "In 1514, the Lateran Council sought Copernicus's opinion on calendar reform."

While I cannot yet exclude that Thorn did belong to Silesia at that time, other sources attribute it to the kingdom of Prussia: "In 1466, with the Teutonic Order's defeat, Pomerelia became again subject to the Polish Crown as a part of Royal Prussia."

I just wondered because I imagine Thorn alias Torun located in what was Pommern, Westpreussen, or Posen for centuries but always far from Silesia. At school I learned to distinguish between Urstromtälern Glogau-Baruth und Thorn-Eberswalde. A grandfather of mine was born in Langenbielau/Silesia, A grandmother of mine was born near Bromberg. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerania#High_Middle_Ages_to_Early_Modern_Age

Wishing me all the best for my future work and calling me Mr. Blumschein does not hurt me much although I am already pretty old and my accordingly limited means and my sober style of reasoning seem to be different from yours. I would never say nature hates something. Nonetheless, I hope we will respect and support each other rather than quibbling.

Best,

Eckard

Dear Eckhard,

Kopernikus indeed was a countryman of your ancestors! His father's family came from a village in Silesia near Nysa, called Kopernik.

Wikipedia: "The father's family can be traced to a village in Silesia near Nysa (Neiße). The village's name has been variously spelled Kopernik,[8] Copernik, Copernic, Kopernic, Coprirnik, and today Koperniki."

So we are both right and happy. I am turning 76 and still active like you. By the way my ancestors were Teutonic Knights from the Koenigsberg area. (Fischhausen)

Since you are so deeply knowledgeable in science history, I have a question:

Who has invented symmetrical relativity the first time? Was it Poincare?

Best

Lutz

    Dear Lutz,

    My essay was downgraded immediately after I too frankly responded to your request concerning Poincaré. I should have added that Henry Poincaré at least vehemently tried to be critical towards Cantor's set theory.

    Can you please explain what you meant with symmetrical relativity? I understand Poincaré/Einstein synchronization ABA as asymmetrical.

    Best,

    Eckard

    Dear Eckard,

    I graded your essay well long before I commented it. The more I read from your the better I comprehend your deep knowledge, and I admire it.

    The Newton-Maxwell-Lorentz-Lamor relativity is always asymmetrical to an absolute rest frame (they called it aether, but it need not be ponderable). I.e. all other frames are to be considered secondary and velocities asymmetric to absolute space.

    Poincare was frustrated that nobody was able to measure the absolute zero velocity frame. Therefore he postulated that all bodies move relatively and symmetrically to each other. A moves relative to B and B moves symmetrical relative to A. Einstein read this and declared it as his invention without understanding the problem. The problem is that it is false.

    Correct is: A moves relative to 0 (Cosmic Velocity Zero) VA

    B moves relative to 0 VB

    A moves relative to B VAB = VA - VB

    Best

    Lutz

      Dear Lutz,

      Newton relativity sounds strange to me. I thought, in contrast to Leibniz, Newton imagined space as a substance, a scenario of God, something absolute. As Pentcho persistently tells us, the velocity of an emitted bullet refers to the emitter and not to the medium in which it moves.

      Maxwell had reason to relate the velocity of light to a hypothetical medium because he understood light a wave like acoustic waves that relate to air.

      Air is like a block; it has a point of reference, space has no reference point.

      Therefore Michelson failed when he tried to measure how this point moves relative to earth.

      Given you were right, and there was a preferred point or boundary in or of space relative to which A and B move. Did this matter for VAB? VAB is the relative velocity between A and B. We may arbitrarily decide counting it positive if the distance is getting shorter and negative else or vice versa. This is indeed a symmetrical relationship. Poincaré synchronization by Einstein ABA (or BAB) is an asymmetrical, lets say it friendly, convention.

      Best,

      Eckard

      Dear Lutz Kayser,

      you write:

      „Since then millions of valuable mathematician 's and theoretical physicists' work-hours are spent calculating what happened during these first 1E-45 seconds and then with inflation and even accelerated expansion." So happely, as I am meteorologist, I am not wasting my time on that way.

      I also agree with your attitudes that I intuitively applied in my work. I've also read some of your interesting comments to other participants. I'd like you to comment on my essay. As you know, predictions of meteorologists are easy to check. In predictions of my essay, there is no hiding behind the impossibility of the verification scientists` "clairvoyance".

      Best Regards,

      Branko

        Dear Lutz,

        It is a pleasure to read your essay. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Readers should seriously consider the importance of your historical presentation. My opinion is that there is substantial artificiality in theoretical physics. Good luck in the contest.

        James

          4 days later

          Dear Branko,

          thanks for your kind and intelligent words.

          I shall read your essay and comment it.

          Best

          Lutz

          Dear James,

          thanks for your kind message,

          I am aware of your thoughts on Relativity from your published papers and share your concerns.

          Let us break the chains of the relativity prison asap!

          Best

          Lutz

          You wrote, "It shows an 800 pound gorilla (mathematics) can easily suppress a

          small bird (physics) if nobody cares for a fair equilibrium. The mainstream Standard Cosmological Model, or Big Bang, with inflation and accelerating expansion is the result. It has no realistic physical background and based on a false redshift explanation." Well said!!! However, i don't think you went far enough. Dark matter is not just "transparent", but a fantasy or fudge factor of mathematical fiddling to bridge the gap between empirical data and currently accepted mathematical theory. Excellent paper!!!

          Nick Percival

            Dear Nick,

            you hit the nail on the head!

            One could go on and on with today's "fudge factor physics".

            The dreadful cheating of the Nobel Committee using manipulated supernova data is remarkable. Nobel prizes are strewn over fraudulent physicists. The next case for the arctic "gravity waves" is pending.

            Best

            Lutz

            • [deleted]

            Lutz,

            That is a clear and coherent essay for those of us just observing the fields of physics and cosmology.

            Some decades ago it occurred to me that the Big Bang model was nonsense, when I read that the rate of expansion is inversely proportional to gravity. Even someone with very little education in the subject would realize that if this intergalactic expansion is balanced by intergalactic contraction, there would be no additional expansion of the universe as a whole. What seemed evident is this is a modeling of a convection cycle of expanding radiation and contracting mass.

            We can accept that gravity is "equivalent" to acceleration and still know the surface of the planet doesn't rush outward to keep us attached to it, so why wouldn't there be an opposite effect, where redshift is "equivalent" to recession?

            One point I keep raising is that when they discovered these galaxies are redshifted such that we appear at the center, it was argued this was an expansion of space, not just in space and every point appears as the center, based on the premise of expanding spacetime. Which is total nonsense, since the time component doesn't increase! The speed of light doesn't increase in order to remain Constant to this expanding space. Of course, the Doppler effect would only work if there were more lightyears, not stretched lightyears. So we are to believe that space is expanding, based on the redshift of this intergalactic light and we can measure this expansion against a stable yardstick, based on the speed of that very same light!

            Now we are the center of our view of the universe and so a compounding optical effect would explain this increasing redshift, why we appear at the center and why it goes parabolic, without needing dark energy to explain the curve in the rate.

            I think one of the main problems for physics in general is that we perceive change as a sequence of events and so think of time as the point of the present moving from past to future. Which physics codifies by treating it as a measure of duration.

            While the actual reality is a changing configuration of what exists, which turns future into past. To wit, the earth doesn't travel some dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns.

            Duration is simply the state of the present, as events form and dissolve and not a vector external to the present.

            This makes time an effect of action, not the basis for it and as such, is similar to temperature. Time is to temperature, what frequency is to amplitude. It is just that while amplitude en masse is temperature, frequency en masse is static and so isolated actions are measured. Yet the overall effect of change is cumulative, like temperature. A faster frequency/clock simply uses energy quicker and so recedes into the past faster. The tortoise is still plodding along, long after the hare has died.

            This leaves space alone and space without physical properties to define or limit it has only the two non-physical properties of being absolute and infinite.

            The state of this absolute equilibrium is implicit in the speed of light in a vacuum being constant. Since a clock would stop at the speed of light, if we were to place clocks around in space, the one which ran fastest would be closest to this equilibrium of the vacuum.

            Meanwhile an infinite space wouldn't be subject to entropy, since energy radiated from one area would be replaced by energy radiated in from surrounding areas.

            So then we have this infinite vacuum, filled with energy fluctuations and the two main features of this wave action are frequency and amplitude, i.e.. time and temperature.

            Now any energy will express form, even if it is just frequency and amplitude. As such, energy presses outward and form is the definition pressing inward, since it is based on interactions of energy thus impeding.

            This form then is both physical mass and sensory information. While the energy is dynamic and conserved, the form is static and transient. So the energy goes from prior form to succeeding form, as the form comes into being and dissolves. Thus the arrow of time for energy is past to future, while the arrow of time for form is future to past.

            Think of a factory, where the product goes start to finish, while the production line is going the other way, consuming material and expelling product. Life is the same. Individuals go from being in the future to being in the past, birth to death, while the species goes onto the next generation, shedding the old.

            So then tie this back to the galaxies, as mass forms on the perimeters and falls inward, getting ever more dense, yet radiating out much excess energy. Just as factories and people radiate much waste. Eventually what falls into the center gets shot out the poles as cosmic jets, or quasars.

            All this energy to eventually solidify into new forms and start over.

            So gravity is not just a property of mass, but the process of consolidation, by which energy coalesces into mass and so is not so much a particular force, as a cumulative effect of all that is pulling inward. A vacuum, just like energy released from mass creates pressure.

            So the reason we can't find gravity waves is because we are not looking for the right thing. It is light.

            Einsteins's Cosmological Constant is light. The balance to the attraction of gravity.

            This is my somewhat accidental theory of everything.

            I've entered in a few of these contests, but knew this one would really be banging my head on the wall, so didn't get motivated enough to try.

            Good luck!

            Regards,

            John Merryman

            14 days later

            Dear Lutz,

            I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

            All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

            Joe Fisher

              15 days later

              Lutz,

              Great essay, which I'm very glad I got to. No time now for long discussions but well done. If you have to time I know you'll enjoy my own essay, and this video deriving a new cosmic redshift effect free of expanding acceleration.

              9 min. VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift.

              A better score coming, well deserved for well tackling this important subject.

              Best regards

              peter

              Dear Joe,

              I read your interesting essay and rated it well.

              Best

              Lutz

              Dear Peter,

              I watched your video and read your essay. Your thoughts about cosmic redshift mechanisms are very interesting. We must find an alternative physics to the abominable "expansion"!

              Please continue your quest.

              Best

              Lutz