To begin with your pessimism concerning evolution, I see the future open. As Shannon said, it is unknown but we may influence it.

While I highly appreciate your profound knowledge of group theory, I got aware of deliberate neglect of logics not just in the application of mathematics but perhaps already in its very basics. You mentioned topology and a region around a point. Someone mocked, topology cannot even act like a child and perform a symmetrical cut. Why? Because a real number is a number. Is a number really a number? Hausdorff's surrounding of a point and the picture of how to imagine the Dirac impulse as an infinitely narrow bell-shape don't fit to what Terhardt revealed and also not to my intention for strictly dividing between positive and negative or past and future.

David Joyce confirmed my ideas as interesting when I criticized pebbles instead of Euclidean points.

Katz made me aware of the fact that the logical notion infinity as used by Galileo is different from the mathematical (relative) infinity by Leibniz/Bernoulli.

In all, I have to make homework as to go through what I feel with Weyl a shaking ground and holpefully falsify my suspitions concerning Pauli's opinion. I don't see myself biased by lacking qualification. My professional work was to a large extent teaching and application of complex calculus.

Cheers, Eckard

Eckard,

I can't agree that identifying 'bootstrapping' is 'selfish'. Among thousands of approximations since Roemer not one has, famously!, yet found a way of precisely measuring the one way speed of light without 'relying' on light itself. We've discussed interferomenters before and I've published papers on their limitations and poor interpretation. Either you can pull yourself from the a swamp by your own hair or your description isn't useful, or a contribution to resolving all the anomalies found and paradoxes in SR etc.

I've described one option that DOES resolve the anomalies, not requiring the old 'ether' to carry light. We already know light CHANGES SPEED when it encounters any medium on n=

Peter,

My definition of the speed of light in empty space does also not need the aether. By the way, the notion aether goes back to Homer and Aristotele. Initially it meant the sky and then a divine immaterial eternal substance free from the contradictions that were thought to be immanent to the elements. When Maxwell's equations explained light as electromagnetic waves, these waves were imagined to propagate in a medium like acoustic waves in air. Before, Newton had imagined light like emitted particles. Your re-emission idea is a variant of his emission theory.

Your last posting seems to be unfinished. Anyway, I don't at all deal with light in "any medium".

What about the one-way measurement, it is of course not feasible in astronomy to directly measure distances and timespans "without relying on light itself". Nonetheless, it is feasibile to reproducibly measure distances on solid objects and also timespans with high accuracy. Einstein was wrong when he denied the possibility of one-way measurement. I see his two-way Poincaré synchronization as a trick to arrive at Lorentz' length contraction formula.

When I wrote "selfish", I meant your attempt to simply declare my essay not as correct as your former essays, without a detailled critical comparison. Moreover, I feel immune against blackmailing.

Eckard

Eckard,

You're right. Most of the post was cut as I used a symbol that seems to do so!

Not just Einstein; it's a famous problem in all astrophysics to derive a way to measure 1 way speed! And I didn't suggest you employed ether, only that my (cut- but given before) "detailed critical comparison" doesn't either. You didn't open up to allow yourself to grasp it before but maybe now;

Fermions are condensed as pairs FROM some condensate, they are not 'ether'. (We've recently found thousands of time more of this space plasma than believed - i.e. 1014/cm-3 even locally in Earths turbulent ionospheric shock.

We know fermions couple with Electromagnetic signals (including the visible range). We also know such plasma has a refractive index of n=1 (so has NO detectable EM 'signature'). Now all findings support the notion that all particles re-emitting EM energy do so at c. That is LOCAL 'c' IN THE CENTRE OF MASS REST FRAME OF EACH PARTICLE.

Lastly we know that massive clouds of space plasma move around in space (most often around and in the LOCAL rest frame of co-moving bodies). We also find 'birefringence' (TWO apparent paths/speeds) in less dense plasmas, gases and some other media.

I hope that 'nutshell' explanation was adequate.

Best Peter

Now all we have to do is employ our brains analytical functions and put all those findings together logically. To do it for you;

EM propagation is at 'c' locally wherever fermions exist, or at c with respect to the last emitters interacted with. Signals may appear to have 'curved paths' in diffuse media until all is interacted with or where (ubiquitous) particle density gradients exist. Light will therefor travel through OUR Solar system at c wrt the SUN unless near a planet. And light in OTHER solar systems will propagate at c wrt to THAT sun, NOT OURS!!

That description is consistent with ALL findings, including ALL the disparate and otherwise confusing interferometer result. It also solves many anomalous findings. i.e. the KINETIC reverse refraction of light in plasma clouds moving across it's path, (as also found by Lodge in his spinning glass disc experiments).

Now in fact that's very close to your own description, apart from it recognizes the known physics of coupling, and also has that massive power to resolve all anomalies and paradoxes (think of any for me if you like and I'll explain how). It's no more 'one way measurable' than any other model but is both fully consistent AND exceptionally useful.

Eckard,

Your criteria for non-arbitrary decisions, "Reality cannot be shifted, reversed, or otherwise changed. It does not exhibit much genuine redundancy, in particular no absolutely exact symmetries," is certainly reasonable though agendas of various kinds tend to interfere as you mention -- creationism,self-interest, etc. Logical choices, even choices augmenting long-term survival, are obviously not automatic. Mindless laws, like entropy might offer direction, but real steerage comes from humans. How do we assure non-arbitrary decisions? I'm not sure my essay makes any headway in answering that question.

Interesting read.

Jim Hoover

    Dear Eckard Blumschein

    The excellent essay with a deep analysis of the mistakes of science.

    Being an engineer, I too believe that «the laws of nature lost their immediate connection with concrete causal structures of reality when their variables were abstracted from it and generalized at higher logical level». «my essay admits reality to be an open system seamlessly including everything from elementary fields and particles up to memories, aims, intentions, and beyond».

    In My essay it is shown that the using of mathematical abstractions and ideal properties of matter and fields in the description of physical reality leads to a lack of reasons for the ongoing processes, lead to the abstract particles, to pointless research of collapses, of infinities, of normalization, of calibrations, of clouds of probability and so on. The phenomenological laws and their abstract coefficients spread on everything systems unreasonably and are elevated to the rank of absolutes.

    This led me to the conclusion that the reason of self-organization systems of matter is quantum-parametric resonance and the formation of solitons.

    Kind regards,

    Vladimir Fedorov

      Jim Hoover,

      I see only your eye-catcher entropy a bit related to my essay. My credo is causality. It implies irreversible time, evolution, and human responsibility. Entropy is a concept of closed thermodynamics systems. I prefer seeing the world open except for non-arbitrary reasoning.

      "How do we assure non-arbitrary decisions?" Well, your dreamed TOE should be non-arbitrary, it is, self-consistent. I see awareness of discrepancies between mutually excluding views better guides than lazy reiterating overly advertised more or less speculative tenets including SR.

      Common sense is sufficient as to understand the most important duties of science. For instance, there is no denial, the usual time scale requires an arbitrarily chosen reference. There is also no denial, uncontrolled rapid growth of population destroys the earth which contradicts to genuine humanity.

      Vladimir Nikolaevich,

      Maybe you felt attracted by my not just fundamental but hopefully also compelling criticism because you are offering own unusual ideas.

      In order to be helpful, you should specify the criticism you are just mentioning.

      Kind regards,

      Eckard

      Dear Eckard Blumschein

      I think that the most important thing for the theme of the contest is to solve the problem of causality in quantum mechanics and in the processes of self-organization of matter systems. You a lot of space in an essay devote to this issue.

      «This reason-oriented principle proved utterly fertile in all branches of science, not just of biology but also far beyond, including cosmology and social sciences».

      However, in your essay, I did not see the solution to this problem in the form of a quantum physical process, only the declarations and possible ways of solving by mathematical methods.

      «Isn't two-way (Poincaré-) synchronization just conventional? Despite of being accepted, it is at odds with the old tenet of just one ubiquitously valid absolute time and also with causality. On the other hand, abundant lectures [7] tell that two-way synchronization and therefore Lorentzian length contraction etc. must be right. Maybe possible loopholes can be found».

      The desire is there, but there is no solution.

      So I gave my very simple decision in the form of a classic causal quantum-parametric resonance process and the formation of solitons, in which the natural physical process implemented in accordance with the principle of minimum extreme action.

      I do not deny that I want to draw your attention to my work, because your opinion is very important to me.

      Kind regards,

      Vladimir Fedorov

        Kadin is correct: "what is courageous to some may be foolish to others." I am fully aware that a majority doesn't like to be made aware of possible mistakes. Nonetheless, disillusionment is often necessary as to find correct solutions.

        I feel not competent to comment on your quantum-parametric resonance and solitons. The "reason-oriented principle" you are referring to is evolution. I guess, it is even useful in case of those fields of science you are focusing on where there is definitely no human intention behind the reality. As Kadin wrote: There is no gost in the machine. Fellows of Faihinger called themselves friends of the "as if". The reason for the success of thinking as if there was a creator is the attribution of causality to Him.

        Of course, some quantum phenomena seem to contradict causality. I don't see there a serious problem because I consider causality indispensable. Instead, I found indications for possible conceptional mistakes the revelation of which might be of little value.

        In case of two-way synchronization, I avoided revealing some far reaching consequences. I selected [7] because it shows to a critical reader a lot between the lines. Although sci.physics.relativity is dominated by cranks, outsiders like aetherist Ken H. Seto, and defenders of relativity like J. Roberts, I dared to suggest there a one-way definition of the speed of light in vacuum. The discussion is going on.

        You are right, my solution requires that the putative evidence for time dilution is wrong while mass increase can be explained otherwise.

        13 days later

        Dear Eckard,

        I will go through once again and tell few more points if any, meanwhile....

        ..................... I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay

        ...............and where reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at my essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

        I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

        For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

        Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

        With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

        Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

        Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

        http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

        Best wishes to your essay.

        For your blessings please................

        =snp. gupta

        Dear SNP Gupta,

        Not by chance, I agree with many of your heretical views. I will try and comment on your essay accordingly.

        Sadly, you and perhaps many others who were worried by my essay shied back from addressing what I consider a most important consequence: growing responsibility for our evolution.

        Let me bluntly call a spade a spade: As the huge variety of essay demonstrates, rambling towards something that unites more or less derailed science with traditional believe is not reasonable. Wudu is wrong but not irrelevant.

        My essay takes the position of mankind as a whole and corresponding human obligations. I know that women in India were urged to have four children as to maintain balance with the muslims. The (sunnite) leader Chomenei of Iran urged women to provide 150 millions of Iranians. Hitler gave a so called Mutterkreuz to Germans with four children. Erdogan of Turky urged the already four millons of Muslims in Germany to have five children. I see this as worst crime against humanity. Europe and Northern America are in the happy situation to largely offer a slum-free perspective to the young generation. Evolution is in our hand.

        Corrections:

        "muslims. The (sunnite) leader" should read "Muslims. The religious leader of Shiites"

        "accordingly" should read "accordingly in your thread as soon as possible"

        In was in a hurry.

        Let me add my kind regards, Eckard

        Dear Blumschein,

        Your Idea is amusing....

        God created man as a copy of His own does perhaps mean, man created God as his copy

        I read your essay once again, it is good, I did not find any more criticism.

        Best wishes to your essay. It is good

        =snp.gupta

        Dear SNP Gupta,

        You quoted my quote of Lichtenberg who lived in the 18th century, when atheism was still condemned even in Europe.

        Why is this amusing? Perhaps you don't understand me.

        I consider my agreement with your statements 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' and "No singularities" also carefully justified.

        The latter implicitely declares the present use of mathematics in physics leaving sound reasoning.

        Of course, it is allowed to imagine for instance the magnetic field that surrounds an electric conductor as if the latter was just a line.

        However, singular lines are unreal. I revealed the primary basis of belonging mistakes already in the notion of relative infiniteness introduced by Leibniz and Bernoulli who lived in the 17th century. I don't see the notion singularity justified within the continnum of real numbers; it only belongs to Z although Z is included in R. Z lost its separability with its embedding in R.

        Kind regards,

        Eckard

        Dear Eckard Blumschein,

        Thank you for seeing my essay and giving a comment there, I am just repeating my answer here

        Thank you for nice comments and spending time on my essay......

        Your words..........

        .........................My humble intent to appeal on responsibility for the evolution of mankind forbids ignoring your rich work, although I have no knowledge in astrophysics and cosmology. ..............Reply...................

        Thank you for such nice words and Blessings

        ............... Your words..........

        .........................I learned from you that the Big Bang is based on SR. Having dealt with oddities of Poincarè synchronization, I am not persuaded that relativity of time is correct. ..............Reply...................

        Bigbang is from GR the General relativity. Dynamic Universe Model is a solution of N-body problem, which Poincare also tried long back. Thank you for saying about time, time has one direction only. Time will never go back....

        ............... Your words..........

        ......................... I merely accept what is evident from experiments with accelerators: electromagnetic mass increase. ..............Reply...................

        Sir, Mass increase is a proposal from Dynamic Universe Model, experiments were not done yet. Probably you may please initiate one such experiment....

        I work on theoretical side only....

        Kind regards,

        =snp.gupta

        • [deleted]

        • Post #50

        Dear SNP Gupta,

        "Time will never go back...." Yes. I see causality and evolution contradicting to CPT and Lorentz symmetry.

        Maybe, you mistook my sentence: "I merely accept what is evident from experiments with accelerators: electromagnetic mass increase."

        I felt urged to go through 40 pages of links and comments in

        http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments...

        as to find out what might be wrong with either my one-way definition or SR.

        There I found "6.Test of Relativistic Kinematics": - - -Relativistic Mass Variations: electron, proton

        While important authors like Thomson and Abraham are not mentioned, p. 22 lists Kaufmann 1905, 1906, 1915, Bucherer 1908, 1909, Hupka 1910, G. Neumann 1913, 1914, Guye 1915, Zahn 1938, Rogers 1940, Meyer 1963, Bertozzi 1964, Geller 1972.

        Maybe, those who preferred the Lorentz/Einstein theory were not aware of the logical inconsistence of Einstein's use of two-way synchronization and his denial of causality and direction of evolution. I don't share Abraham's and the other ones speculations about the shape of an electron.

        Kind regards,

        Eckard

        Dear Eckart

        I have read your essay endorsing causality and common sense in the evolution of the Universe. Your conclusions that by evolving the Universe leads to us who understand moral values are interesting. Do not mind me I am putting words into your mouth, but apart from my disagreeing about the fundamental nature of time - for me time does not exist as a dimension but emerges from sentient memory - it seems to me this is what you are saying and you have answered the essay question very well.

        Good luck and best wishes

        Vladimir

          Dear Vladimir,

          I learned from you the word "sentient". My dictionary tells me: "Something that is sentient is capable of experiencing sensations through the physical senses". In my understanding, feeling belongs to a single individual, not directly to a group of individuals and also not to the non-animal items of chemistry and physics from elementary particles up to cosmos.

          Well, I don't hide my rationalist position up to most unwelcome consequences. Let me "blame" the topical essay question for letting no chance to me but to

          - defend causality against Einstein's relativity of time,

          - reveal G. Cantor's more than infinite sets as a logical outgrow of Leibniz' pragmatic relative infiniteness and reveal singularity as outside IR,

          - criticize unlimited growth of population as the most dangerous to nature unreasonable evolution of mankind as a whole.

          The latter insight requires a very basic correction to ethics up to the condemnation of all those who urge women to have at least 4 or even 5 children as to strengthen the power of a state or religion as recently did Erdogan.

          Kind regards,

          Eckard

          6 days later

          Dear Eckard,

          I read with great interest and pleasure your essay, full of ideas and of theoretical and historical references, which are for me always grounds for reflection (as well as all your post in FQXi forums, that I always try to read, when I can). Although there are differences between our views, for example on the interpretation of the Cantorian real numbers (which in my opinion can have not only a mathematical meaning, but also a physical one), there are ideas I fully share. One is the interpretation of teleological concepts as tools that we are inclined to use "as if" they were objective phenomena, but whose existence in nature is unprovable. It is a perspective that reminds me of Kant's Kritik der Urteilskraft, and of the work of Hans Vaihinger, a great scholar of Kant, which has condensed his thoughts and his Kant's interpretation in the book Philosophie des Als Ob[i/]. Moreover, I really appreciate your interest and commitment to ethical issues, a commitment that is not always so openly manifest in the scientific community, but of which I think there is really need, especially at a time when shadows are gathering more and more densely at the horizon of history and of the earth.

          My very kind regards,

          Giovanni