Hi Tom,
It is a pleasure to meet you again in FQXi Essay Contest. I am very honoured by your statement that "always look forward to your essays, because I know I can expect a maximum of theoretical prediction and numerical result, with a minimum of blah,blah, blah ..." It is really a great compliment, thank you very much.
It will be my pleasure to read, comment and score your Essay asap.
I wish you best luck in the Contest.
Cheers, Ch.
Dear Christian,
I enjoyed your essay, and I agree with you that "General relativity is [...] the best example showing that Mathematics is Truth instead of Trick." And what is the best way to show once more this, than to confirm its validity by explaining the deviation in the Mössbauer rotor experiment, deviation which was even considered an evidence against general relativity's adequacy. That's a good way to answer the contest's question, and in the same time to celebrate 100 years of general relativity. Congratulations!
Best wishes,
Hi Cristi,
I am very happy to meet you again in FQXi Essay Contest. You indeed know that I am an estimator of your research work. Thus, I am extremely honoured by your good judgement on my Essay and by your congrats, thank you very much.
I will be pleasured to read, comment and score your Essay asap.
I wish you best luck in the Contest.
Cheers, Ch.
Dear Christian,
Your essay as always is a rich educational resource, and it's a perfect sentiment for the 100th celebration of General Relativity - a strong and independent proof which reveals the full geometric interpretation of gravity. You provide an excellent analysis of the Mossbauer effect - one I haven't seen before, and your geometric interpretation of time dilation and clock synchronization are absolutely enlightening! You spell out specific pivotal ideas and back them up with technical rigor and lucid experimental evidence; I thoroughly thank you for this solid approach. I also appreciated the application to GPS systems at the end of your essay, a field I briefly consulted in many years ago. A class act contribution to this topic and the forum, I give it the highest rating.
My essay also brings out how changing the mathematical representation can educe quite amazing revelations in physical explanation, and discusses General Relativity's geometric interpretation as a key feature. Furthermore, it mentions the geometric effect on the Turing machine, and uses relativity theory in understanding the multiverse explanation of self referentially induced superposition. Please take a moment to read my essay and rate it as well,
Thanks, Steve
Hi Steve,
Nice to meet you again here in FQXi Essay Contest.
Thanks for your kind words and for the highest rating which honour me.
I must confess that the application to GPS systems at the end of my essay was suggested by a referee of reference [16] in my Essay, which is my research paper published in Ann. Phys. 355, 360 (2015). In fact, I formally thanked that very expert referee in both that research paper and this Essay, which is founded on such a research paper.
I will be very pleasured to read, comment and rate your Essay asap.
Thanks again, I wish you best luck in the Contest.
Cheers, Ch.
Dr. Corda,
I also was pleased to see someone celebrate the centennial of General Relativity and had read your abstract immediately. I was not surprised to recognize that I'm not equipped to venture in without a guide and browsing for information confirmed that. The salient feature appears to be the disjunct between SR and GR, and the lack of a unified field resolution that would make GR definitive of a discrete non-zero point particle applicable to QM.
Though a novice to GR, and only dragged kicking and screaming by the persistence of Thomas Ray to an understanding of it being a selection of interconnecting maths that operate more like a computational device than 'a theory' which is its own co-ordinate system, I was finally disabused of what is probably a common niave assumption that GR is an extension of SR. And while SR is perhaps the most experimentally confirmed theory to date, the time metric remains under constant challenge.
At issue is the observer experience commonly illustrated by Einstein's epiphany of riding a beam of light and time 'stops'. It is mathematically complete but is based on the metric that the speed of time is one second per second at relative rest and ,Lorentz fashion, is zero second per second at light velocity. If we look at that in reverse, gravitation is the negative acceleration linearly from 1 sec/sec at c, down to relative rest at 0 sec/sec, and perhaps analogous to Unruh's 'uneven flow of time'.
If we look at SR from a paradigm that time in a stationary frame appears to stop in the experience of an observer in the light velocity frame, because light velocity is equivalent to the limit rate to which time can extend, then both observers can proceed through time at their respective gravitational rate. Energy is mass existing at light velocity but doesn't have to extend spatially to infinity. It remains mathematically complete, and suggests that 0 sec/sec @c | | 1 sec/sec @ 0 , is a 5th dimension.
I think it was Fitzgerald whom remarked that the finite speed of light is 'astonishingly slow'. Coming down from instantaneous at infinity (?), yeah, he's right. It's like a stone. Thank-you for daring to push the limits in such a public forum, and giving feast for thought. Sincerely, jrc
OOPS! drat...
at end of paragraph 4 should read ' 1 sec/sec @ c || 0 sec/sec @ 0 '
jrc
Dear John,
Thanks for your kind words with interesting comments. Actually, today GR is experimentally confirmed almost in the same quantity of SR. Although, on one hand, the time metric remains under constant challenge, on the other hand it has some experimental tests in the so-called gravitational time dilation, i.e. the stronger the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes.
Thanks again, I will be pleasured to read, comment and rate your Essay asap.
I wish you best luck in the Contest.
Cheers, Ch.
Christian,
Great essay. You maintain an exceptional standard. I also agree the wisdom of your approach, which I also use, not attacking Einstein for incompleteness or flaws but helping complete it and improve the understanding. I also found your writing very clear and concise. I think it should be another top essay (in the community scoring at least - certainly for me) but I hope may also now seem more palatable to those more theoretically entrenched.
You should be aware of the other commonalities, but this year I also identify and analyze the consequences of the great mathematical self-deception underlying QM and hampering unification. i.e. I show we CAN trick ourselves by carelessly 'abusing' mathematics in application. I do hope you'll read and comment as I'm sure you'll like and agree it and also maybe find it helpful
Very well done and thank you for a different vista on the reality we agree on.
Best of luck
Peter
Christian,
Great opportunity to celebrate GR and Einstein's 100th anniversary. You provide a cogent explanation of a strong and independent proof which reveals the full geometric interpretation of gravity.
Indeed, Math is truth rather than trick. I have done modelling and simulation and always valued the power of math to lend understanding to operation of weapon systems in aerospace and solve practical problems. I also see its need in bringing us forward in quantum biology, a better understanding of the universe's beginnings (LHC) and the origins of life (DNA). These are sort of my proofs.
Jim
Dear Peter,
It is a pleasure to meet you again here in FQXi. Thanks for the very good judgement on my Essay. I am honoured by this.
I am going to read, comment and rate your Essay asap.
Thanks again.
Cheers,Ch.
Hi Jim,
I am happy to meet you again here in FQXi Essay Contest. I am honoured by your good judgement on my Essay, thank you very much.
I will read, comment and rate your Essay asap.
Thanks again.
Cheers, Ch.
Dear Christian,
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
Christian,
Thanks for taking the time to read my essay. Regarding your comment on Santilli, have you seen this latest report? I don't know all the nuances. What is your reaction?
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/01/prweb12448979.htm
Jim
Dear Joe,
It is very hard for me to think that Einstein, Newton and Hawking were wrong as there are tons of experimental and observing data and tons of computations which show that they were correct instead. In any case, I will read, comment and rate your Essay soon.
Cheers, Ch.
Dear Jim,
Thanks for raised this point. It permits indeed to clarify my position with Santilli also here in FQXi. Santilli is indeed considered a crackpot and a crank by the Scientific Community, see here. Differently from this general judgement, I think that there are parts of Santilli's research which should deserve a better attention, in particular Santilli's research on new clean energies. In fact, my general opinion is that although the 98% of the work of a researcher can be, in principle, wrong, it is a good thing to save the remaining 2%. This is the criteria on which I judge the research work, not only of Santilli, but of every researcher. But there are various other issues of Santilli's research on which I completely disagree. In particular, I completely disagree with Santilli's visions of astrophysics, gravitation and cosmology. I collaborated with Santilli in the recent past, but I ultimately ended my collaboration with Santilli and his running dogs this year. My collaboration with Santilli started to fall into crisis during a Greek Conference in September 2015. In that Conference, I criticized Santilli's stuff on antimatter, gravitation and cosmology. I am indeed very tired, bored and irritated in listening wrong claims as "general relativity is wrong" and/or "Hubble's law establishes that the cosmological redshift is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from Earth in all directions in space. Consequently, the conjectures on the expansion of the universe, the acceleration of the expansion and the big bang necessarily imply a return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe". The last statements on the lack of the expansion of the universe can be easily dismissed with the simple example of the similarity between the expanding Universe and the expanding surface of a balloon... I also add that Santilli does not understand he difference between tensors and pseudo-tensor when he claims that general relativity is wrong, see here. I clarified that, although I think that part of Santilli research work should deserve a better attention by the scientific community, particularly what concerns the research of new clean energies, this does not mean that I agree with all Santilli's claims. In particular, I completely disagree with his claims on gravitation astrophysics and cosmology, which are completely wrong. After that issue, the Santilli Foundation started to reduce my salary and I was attacked various times by Santilli's servants (which I suspect to be mere sockpuppets...). It seems that the slaves do not permit their messiah to be criticized... Thus, I ultimately stopped to organize any conference activity for them. They also asked me to write papers criticizing Santilli's stuff on gravitation and cosmology. Thus, I decided to satisfy them by writing a strong rebuttal against those wrong claims. But I will not submit it in the American Journal of Modern Physics Special Issue that they are organizing. I will write a very strong paper in a serious journal which will show that Santilli's stuff on general relativity and cosmology is completely wrong.
Concerning the report that you cited, its author,i.e. Pamela Fleming is one of Santilli's slaves, a crackpot and ignorant woman who claims that Santilli is the Messiah of science and that people who criticize him are corrupted and/or criminal. On the other hand, S. Beghella-Bartoli from Italy, P. M. Bhujbal from India, and A. Nas from the U.S.A., who should be "the scientists having independently confirmed the first detection in history of antimatter galaxies, antimatter cosmic rays and antimatter asteroids achieved by Santilli" are three collaborators of Santilli. In my personal opinon, Santilli did not detected antimatter galaxies, antimatter cosmic rays and antimatter asteroids while Beghella-Bartoli, Bhujbal and Nas confirmed nothing.
Cheers, Ch.
Christian,
Not being part of the upper echelons of physics, I appreciate being informed on such anti-matter studies and about reputations in scientific studies. The discovery of antigalaxies seemed questionable, even with my limited knowledge. It is sad that such studies can be elevated in importance in the popular media. It speaks to all the deceptions we see in politics and government. Perhaps they can't be separated because the media is no longer a responsible "Fourth Estate."
Thanks for the scoop.
Jim
Dear Jim,
I think that the Santilli Foundation paid a lot of money to see that stuff on antimatter publicized in the popular media. On the other hand, I also think that Santilli made this in good faith, as he thinks to be correct and it is his proper right to publicize his studies. He is not a bad guy, but the key point is that those studies, as well as other studies by him in gravitation, astrophysics and cosmology, are completely wrong at a basic level. I still think that Santilli's research work should deserve a better attention by the scientific community, particularly what concerns the research of new clean energies, but his knowledge and understanding of general relativity, modern astrophysics and modern cosmology are extremely low, and his wrong claims on these issues have the only result to generate a strong lack of credibility on the rest of his research work. This is his biggest problem, and he is the worst enemy of himself.
Cheers, Ch.
"In fact, my general opinion is that although the 98% of the work of a researcher can be, in principle, wrong, it is a good thing to save the remaining 2%."
I wholeheartedly agree. If Newton had been judged solely by his voluminous output in religion and alchemy, his important and valuable work in science and mathematics would have been lost to us.
Tom
Dear Christian,
Very interesting, important and actual essay in 100 year anniversary of the General Theory of Relativity. I have one question: when the Great Ontologic revolution begun by Planck and Einstein comes to the end?
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
