Hello Edwin,

You are very astute to express concern regarding how an IAAAD model in which every particle in the universe is continually interacting with every other can avoid a locking up stasis. The small amount of modelling I have done so far has revealed the following important point. Even though all of the force interactions are equal and opposite, in general they are acting between objects of different mass and state of motion. Therefore the acceleration they incur and how it affects their motion is different which leads to the continuously unsettled motions we observe. There must be some form of natural time steps in this process, otherwise acceleration would have no meaning. My metal understanding stops there, but the mathematics allows this scheme to calculate the effects we observe.

Regarding alternative field theories like the Mansuripur et al hidden momentum debate and the Jeffimenko retarded causality conditions, I believe that there can be as many field theories as there are mathematicians since they are investigating too many uncheckable field parameters. My argument is that IAAAD theories only describe the effects on measurable quantities such as macroscopic matter motion and measurable electric current and voltage.

As far as the testing of Bell's theorem, you clearly have more intricate knowledge than me. I only know the old school IAAAD arguments of Bell, Bohm and Vigier etc. However, it strikes me that you are claiming the eliminating the +/- 1 eigenvalue restriction allows a local theory to explain the results of Aspect and other related experiments. This does not rule out that it may still be a non-local quantum potential that also explains the results. It may just be that Bell's inequalities are no longer able to determine whether interactions are local or non-local. I am quite prepared to believe that.

Whatever your preference for fields that exist and don't exist, the point I am making is that you cannot measure them. To perform what you might call a field measurement requires a specific diagnostic and its reading will already be based on the theory of the field whose existence you are trying to prove by measuring it. At the end of the exercise, you only ever measure an effect between a source and a detector and never gain any knowledge about the activity in between them, and you can always describe this relative behaviour between the two objects by a falsifiable IAAAD law.

I will make some comments soon on your essay in your thread. Thank you for your encouraging remarks.

Regards

Neal

17 days later

Dear Neal,

Well done on your thought provoking essay. I think with Dr Phipps' essay, it ranks among the top ten for lovers of a restoration of correctness in our physics. I have noted your other commentaries to questions above. Also quite reasonable.

While urging that you continue your great work on the mathematics of IAAAD, I wish to draw your attention to another aspect which is physical IAAAD, if you might call it that and on which I have given much thought.

From your writings it is likely that you hold space as merely a relational concept. But suppose this is not so? Suppose, Newton was right when he said, "...space is capable of having some substantial reality. Indeed, if its parts could move..., and this mobility was an ingredient in the idea of vacuum, then there would be no question about it - parts of space would be corporeal substance", and "...it is clear that they (philosophers) would cheerfully allow extension (space) to be substance, just as body is, if only extension could move and act as body can", all on p.8 [link:www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/newtdesc.pdf]De Gravitatione[/link], which I quoted in my 2013 essay.

Suppose, parts of space could cease to exist, and previously non-existent space can come to exist, which in a way can be defined as parts of space moving as Newton hypothesized? After all our cosmology now suggests space can start to exist (Big bang), increase (Hubble expansion), and perish in a Big crunch.

Given this possibility, if the spatial elements of a line joining two objects were to perish, with the result that the two objects become closer together, have the two objects interacted? And if previously non-existent spatial elements come into existence in the line between two objects with the result that they move further apart, have they interacted simultaneously at a distance?

From your statement, "Since IAAAD physics involves the simultaneous interactions of all objects in the universe, then although much of the universe is very far away...", if part of the distance between earth and a distant object perishes, can earth be said to have interacted simultaneously with such distant objects, even though it has moved closer to them?

Can space becoming the unseen participant as in the above two examples for attraction and repulsion at a distance resolve Newton's 'hypothesis non fingo' in some way? If you wish to criticize this idea or give it some thought, you are very welcome to do so at my essay forum. There, I propose the hypothesis: the non-zero dimensional point does not have an eternal existence, but can appear and disappear spontaneously, or when induced to do so.

Thanks a lot for pointing out an alternative mechanism to the mechanism of mass tending to infinity as its velocity approaches c of Einstein's field theory of Special Relativity (SR). Another chink in the armour for SR.

Warm regards,

Akinbo

NB. I am not opposed to any relational views of space you may have. Just liked your essay and want you to bear in mind the substantival view of space. I also believe your essay should be better rated.

Your projection is as good as your paradigm! :)

With regards,

- Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Neal,

This is an interesting challenge to looking at EM theory in the conventional way. I've heard of such issues before, especially about the supposed longitudinal field component and (Feynman's discussion is great) the oddities of the Poynting vector: making it seem that energy enters wire circuits perpendicularly! Altho not convinced that any alternative theory is correct, I do admire the courage and creativity to take on orthodoxy. I wonder what you think of 1. the Jefimenko equations for "projected fields", which give the same result as Maxwell's, but from a completely different (not local) perspective and 2. the "Marinov Motor" as discussed e.g. in Analog by Jeff Kooistra (from whom I also heard of things like longitudinal fields and the "exploding wire" experimental support for such fields.) BTW, how are exploding wires explained conventionally? In any case, your essay is underrated.

Dear Neil,

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

Dear Neal,

Thanks for your comments on my forum. I raised some issues here above on your forum that you can give some thought and reply before competition closes. I am eager to see this as I am not sure this will be available thereafter.

It appears this great and interesting work of IAAAD is being done without the D. That is, the drama of 'action at a distance' between massive objects or charges is being acted without any involvement of Mr. Distance itself in the action/ proceedings. My proposition is supposing Mr Distance is the major participant in the drama? If that be the case, something about a Negative and a Positive charge, may make Mr. Distance to shrink giving us the picture of attraction at a distance. Likewise something about Like charges may make Mr Distance to multiply or elongate giving the picture of repulsion.

The advantage of this 'crazy' model if found correct include;

- Nothing is actually transmitted between the bodies, e.g. force particles like photons or gravitons. The force particle model usually encounters difficulty in explaining attraction.

- No need for the interaction to be constrained by light speed, which would be the case for force particles.

- The interaction, if we may call it so, is instantaneous because no matter how far apart the interacting objects, when the distance between them perishes or is created, instantaneously the distance between them is reduced or increased.

All the best,

Akinbo

*I read some of your work in the Galilean relativity journal. I look forward to criticism of my model of Action at a distance with the full involvement of Mr Distance, probably after the competition is over.

Neal,

If you have not done so, please take a look at my essay. I would be interested in your comments as you have a very practical perspective on Physics. There is still a week or so left to vote if you so desire.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Dear Neal,

It is quite strange that only a few participants looked at your ideas. I red your essay and related papers by you an your father and I found them of interest. I had no time to enter into the details of your non-locality approach but it is useful in the panoply of theories. As the real world (if any) has multiple enties IAAAD may be one. You should have a look at S. Bobroskyiy essay and his reply to my comment about Vlasov's equation. The type of non-locality he is looking at may well have applications in the problem of dark matter.

Thanks for an interesting essay.

Michel

6 months later

Our experiments, not designed to investigate this matter, incidentally show that the only fit to the data is if our model assumes instantaneous scalar potential and c vector potential. We are still investigating. In any event, it isn't clear to me how instantaneous vector potential can be made consistent with the vector potential description of electromagnetic waves since the spatial structures of electromagnetic waves arises from the spatial structures (gradient and curl) of the vector potential.

    4 days later

    I am curious to know what experiments you are performing

    a month later

    The experiments are based on:

    "Detection of the Time-dependent Electromagnetic Potential at 1.3 GHz"

    Natalia K. Nikolova and Robert K. Zimmerman

    CEM-R-46

    November 2007

    Computational Electromagnetics Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer

    "In the Grip of the Distant Universe: The Science of Inertia" describes computer simulation of propagation of electromagnetic radiation at c with IAAAD. Under what conditions, if any, is the source code for this available?

    Write a Reply...