Dear Paul,
Infinite surface is always visible. Complex quantum theory has absolutely nothing to do with simple reality. The real visible Universe must be constructed of the simplest means allowable and the simplest physical construct is visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Tried to submit ONLY INFINITE SURFACE MATTERS to The New Physics Institute, but failed to do so because of lack of membership in any scientific society. Emailed a copy to the editor instead. Submitted THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE to the CHAOS Journal of the American Physics Institute.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Although my brilliant essay, THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE was rejected by the Journal of the New Physics Institute, and the CHAOS Journal of the American Physics Institute, Editor Ben Sheard, and Editor Kurths, gave written affirmations that my essay could be submitted to the likes of the Foundation of Physics.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics
These are the second law of thermodynamics and Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate.
The first falsehood: Misled by the would-be version of the second law of thermodynamics "Entropy always increases" (which has nothing to do with the Kelvin-Planck version if logic is obeyed), scientists believe that violations can only occur at the microscopic level:
"Dr Lluis Masanes (UCL Physics & Astronomy), said: "The probability of the law being violated is virtually zero for large objects like cups of tea, but for small quantum objects, it can play a significant role."
Actually violations of the second law of thermodynamics at the macroscopic level are easy to demonstrate. In the following two videos one switches the capacitor on and off and the system can repeatedly lift floating weights:
Rise in Liquid Level Between Plates of a Capacitor
Switching the capacitor on and off involves no work done on the system so the energy for the work done BY the system (if it repeatedly lifts floating weights) can only come from the environmental heat, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
The second falsehood: When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ. This means that either the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, or the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light - from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v). The latter scenario is absurd - the motion of the observer is obviously unable to change the wavelength of the incoming light. Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false - the speed of light is different for differently moving observers.
Pentcho Valev
Dear Pencho,
Physics has not been killed for all physicists still only believe in finite mathematical complexity. They refuse to believe that one real Universe must be organized in the simplest manner possible. The simplest Universal construct must consist of unified, visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Experiments have unequivocally shown that the speed of light is not a constant:
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. [...] In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. [...] If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."
"Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light" Science 20 Feb 2015: Vol. 347, Issue 6224, pp. 857-860
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum [...] ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. [...] "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."
"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."
"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"
"For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. [...] The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."
Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."
Pentcho Valev
Dear Pencho,
Universal physical conformity abides. Only real surface can move. Real light cannot move because real light does not have a real surface. You can prove this by observing a real light. Starlight never moves from the surface of a real star. Electric light never moves away from the surface of a real electric light bulb. Real reflected light never moves from the real surface of the real moon. Please stop repeating complex abstract physics codswallop. Think simple.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Physics,Einstein all are the favorite one for me.Thanks for remembering Einstein one of the legend in world. Just think the world without his invention it is unbelievable.Online essay writing service review submitted an article about Einstein and his works.
online essay writing service review
Dear Teenu,
Einstein was not an inventor, he was an incredibly inept theoretical physicist. His complex equations concerning abstract amounts of invisible mass and finite light constantly speeding through an invisible vacuum tube have absolutely nothing to do with the simplicity of the real observed Universe. Infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light must be empowered by manifest infinite energy.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Fede Benedictus, the managing editor of The Foundation Of Physics Journal has rejected my splendid essay. THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE on the grounds that I did not apparently produce any reliable research statistics. It is truly pathetic. I am rewriting my essay in order to submit it in an essay contest being ran by the Creative Nonfiction organization.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Hi Joe, it sounds like a suitable place where you might get published if you present 'your true story' well and in the right way. I see that they are currently looking for new (general) submissions, perhaps you could write about the difficulty of being taken seriously as an independent thinker and the growing collection of rejections. I did notice that in the "The dialogue between science and religion" submission information it says- "Please note that while our interests are broad and inclusive, narratives should focus strongly on science and religion. We discourage submissions that focus on secondary issues such as bioethics; ecology, the environment, and sustainability; and pseudoscience." It looks like with that 'venue', unless you use the right tack, you might find you are still barred under the pseudoscience category.
Dear Georgina,
I have a pretty fair vocabulary. I do not have any words in my vocabulary to clearly express my gratitude to you for your sublimely gracious comment. I hope you will submit your own essay into the Creative Nonfiction contest.
Joe Fisher, Realist
So far this year, Leicester City has won the English Premier League title after 132 years. The Irish Rugby Union team has beaten the New Zealand All Blacks Rugby Union team for the first time in 111 years, and of course, the Chicago Cubs won its first World Series in 108 years. Perhaps my sublime essay, THE SIMPLEST OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE will get published in a valid scientific journal, and its refutation of Einstein will cause the Theory of Relativity: Special and General to be abandoned after 107 years. I hope so.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Yes, this is also my view of how quantum theory is best understood without any conflict with Einstein's two theories of relativity SR and GR and without the need for a global preferred frame of reference and without even the need for configuration space when particles are entangled as shown by Roderick Sutherland.
Could someone please explain why they like a backwards in time influence rather than the older faster than light collapse (influence) of the entangled state that was preferred by von Neumann and many others.
Extremely simple. I am surprised Stan that still puzzles you since Huw Price, Ken Wharton, Rod Sutherland explain why clearly.
FTL violates relativity.
Back From The Future does not.
PS FTL does not explain why the quantum correlations do not depend on the spacetime separations between the final strong measurements of the entangled particles. The local retrocausal Costa-de Beauregard zig-zag does explain it easily. In other words the spacetime separation need not be spacelike. It can be timelike. Therefore, FTL influence is not a satisfactory explanation.
Jack Sarfatti,
Hi jack,
"In other words the spacetime separation need not be spacelike. It can be timelike."
What is your idea about what time is? Is it a measure of object activity that can be reversed. Or, is it a unique fundamental property that exists independently of object activity? If so, what empirical evidence do you know of that shows that unique fundamental, independent of object activity, time suffers effects? Is there a controlled specimen of this unique fundamental time held in a laboratory that you know of? Which kind of time is involved in your view of 'timelike'? In case there is any uncertainty about what I mean by 'unique fundamental time', it is not a measure of object activity. The unit of second does not measure it. The unit of second is a measure of object activity. It is defined as such. My reason for asking this question is that I find physicists' claims that a measure of object activity is the property of time, empirically unsupportable. The empirical evidence for object activity contains an indefinable property of time as part of its basis. What time is your time?
James Putnam
Hello James,Mr Sarfatti,
Indeed could you develop please? In all case, time is irreversible it seems to me.Regards
If we take the CPT symmetry.And that we extrapolate with groups for the spinal groups, we can even extrapolate with geometrical algeberas of Lie and Clifford and insert all what we want.We have always a time irreversible.We arrive so at how we interpret the Tools and their mathematical propoerties.If we utilise the anti matter for example and the mirrors ,so indeed how can we really interpret the associativities, commutativities,....the vectors an operators, the series finite or infinite,.....
and what about the invariances of Lorentz and the meric of Minkowski?Energy E and impulsion p and their newtonian proportions alwars are respected in all referentials.The same logic is for the photon of mass considered like near 0.The Mirror properties and the reversibilities must be always relative if I can say.At my knowledge the CPT symmetry is a postulate, a foundamental.
Regards