• [deleted]

  • Post #101

Lorraine,

Thanks for reading and commenting ... and voting:-)

I am an engineer by education. I think there is an underlying physical reality that is described by mathematics. Mathematics is useful to me to the extent that it provides a method to analyze the physical world. There are also many areas of "Pure Mathematics" that I have never studied. I do not know whether or not there is a "Platonic Realm" of pure ideas or not. I do know that there are many instances where "Pure Mathematics" has found an application to "Applied Mathematics" in the physical word. Geometric Algebra seems to be one of the more recent examples of this. I am content to let the true mathematicians frolic in these realms to their heart's content.

The difference regarding our thinking is that I need evidence to make me believe that there are "one-off" rules. If two hypotheses make identical predictions then I can not choose one over the other. My default condition therefore is to go with what has already been established unless something else is favored by Occam's Razor. So in short, it is not that I have not heard your ideas or that I have not understood your ideas. You simply have not satisfied your obligations according to the scientific method.

Ah yes .... the true rest frame. You've caught me. I am one of those aether heretics. The v in Eq 2 is the velocity of the observer's reference frame. Equation 2 let's me return to the concept of a true rest frame and make new predictions. For example, I would predict that if you were in a galaxy that is moving away from us at near light speed, the Mp/Me ratio in your reference frame would be many thousands of times larger than in our reference frame. But, if 2 reference frames are identical, then the equation 2 for each of them simply cancel ... kind of like multiplying by one.

This also lets me reinterpret our place in the universe. If we are moving much more slowly than other reference frames, then we might not be at the center of the universe, but we have moved away from the center by a snaller distance than other reference frames. Essentially, I do not believe that relative motion A -> B is equivalent to relative motion B -> A. This is in contradiction to part of Relativity. My saving grace is that I want empirical validation.

The 5-D geometry allows any 3-D space to have its own reference frame by using a different phase angle in the complex plane.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Lorraine,

I don't know how but somehow I was logged out. The above post was obviously me.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Dear Gary Simpson,

It is definitely difficult to promote a new idea. I admit having problems with your "absolute velocity of the observer" and your "observed affect".

Consider me almost an aetherist who denies the aether as something to refer to.

Perhaps we both already failed getting sufficient attraction for enforcing a serious scrutiny by leading experts.

I am aware of many sins of mine against the necessity of serving lazy expectations, in particular by my one-way definition of the speed of light in vacuum instead of Einstein's Poincaré synchronization.

My critical comments on unwarranted interpretation of complex calculus are to be found in earlier essays of mine. I hope for your comment because you dealt with i too.

Regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Gary

Thanks, and for the rating. I'm about to return the honour. I've only ever seen Pythagorus as 2D triangles. The inverse Cos values derivation seems to be it's 3D dynamic analogue. Isn't it? (I was exploring that diagrammatically in my Bob & Alice essay)

I didn't realize I was using quaternions! I really do need help!

Very best

Peter

Eckard,

Thanks for reading and commenting. I almost think the aether is the complex plane plus a unit space vector. We are in the space vector but we are touching the aether.

You are skeptical of my Equation 2. This is understandable. If it is not correct, then how or why does the proton diameter calculation work? You must believe that it is also a coincidence. I can understand such a belief. It is simply hard for me to believe in two successive and linked coincidences. It could be true, but it strains my credibility.

I suspect that AE fully understood the difficulty of measuring the one-way speed of light and that is why he choose to use the round-trip time instead. I would not call that "laziness" on your part but rather a recognition of the difficulty of the problem from the empiricist's point of view.

I read, commented upon, and scored your essay some time ago. The score was in the range 5-10.

In any event, it is likely that the last score I received - a two - was enough to keep me out of the finals.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

I am amazed to see how many authors here firmly follow Galileo in his belief about the language of the Book of Nature, but do not dare to ask how it all might happened.

Your support of our essay hints that some of them still ask, but not necessarily show that.

Thanks again for your support,

Alexey Burov.

Dear Gary,

Concerning one-bombs, I know in turn the phenomenon. Any good rating I received - two or three 10 and others between 7 and 10 - systematically was followed by a 1, and during the last contest it was the same. Well, this is not a problem. Personally, my motivation of participating is discussion and exchange of ideas, and I am sure that it is the same for you. The real problem for me was that I had not enough time to communicate with more people.

Thanks for your reply to mine. It is sure that we share a common vision about quaternations. Concerning time reduced to a scalar, it results from the prerelativist illusion of an absolute time, whereas SR introducing ict necessarily gives to time a real and a imaginary dimension.

I wish you good luck and also a good continuation for your research.

Yours sincerely

Peter

Dear Gary,

I posted a little reply after your answer to my first one.

Good luck

Peter

Dear Gary

Thank you. I enjoyed reading the comments you left on my page.

I responded as follows:

I have looked at your essay, but as I have expressed elsewhere my brain seems to function visually and geometrically and after everything is understood that way do I resort - under protest - to algebraic formulation!

Having said that your five-dimensional world based on quatrenons seems to confirm the Kaluza-Klein approach. I like that because it presents the possibility of having the nodes of my cellular automata Beautiful Universe as that fifth dimension, sort of!

Best wishes and good luck in your work.

Vladimir

    All,

    I wish to thank all those who voted for me in the final hours. It helped a lot and I moved up well into the top 40 (#32 by my count). I'm not sure whether or not that will make the finals. Nonetheless, this was an excellent learning experience. Also, my thanks to all who read and commented.

    Best Regards and Good Luck to All,

    Gary Simpson

      Oops ... looks like either I counted wrong or there was a last minute change. I finished at #33.

      Gary Simpson

      Vladimir,

      Many thanks for reading and commenting. Perhaps you also voted? I noticed my score rose several times in the last few hours.

      I think that using 5 dimensions can provide an extra degree of freedom to resolve many of the issues you present in your essay. In addition, it would allow QM and GR to each treat time as they require to be mathematically correct.

      It is definitely a variation upon the Kaluza-Klein theory, and it is more comprehensible as to the meaning of the scalar dimension.

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

      Hi Gary!

      Congratulations! In this jungle under bombardment you achieved your goal without using forbidden weapons! Furthermore, you gave a great contribution for the exchange of ideas, which is a main goal of this contest.

      I thank you very much your help and support! Without you, I think I would have turned my attention to other subjects and deserted from this "war".

      Now, let's see what the judges think of my essay... I am curious...

      Good luck!

      Best regards

      Alfredo