Essay Abstract

This essay is a demonstration that mindless mathematical laws actually constitute a language which can explicitly represent any ideas conceivable by any intelligent individual. That there exists no language which cannot be represented by mathematical notation. The end result is a demonstration that many of modern physics concepts are flawed.

Author Bio

Richard D. Stafford received a doctorate in theoretical physics from Vanderbilt University in 1971 but earned my living from businesses I owned.

Download Essay PDF File

Hello Dick,

Condensing your work down to fit within the constraints of this essay contest makes it almost unintelligible, at least it seems to me that it would strike someone that way who has not seen it before. I think your book does a much more convincing job. Hopefully, this essay might encourage more people to read your book. I hope so.

Best wishes,

Paul

    'In modern physics, time is defined by readings on clocks not physical interactions.." In fact, the two bring up rather different issues."

    If you cannot see the flaw in such an interpretation you apparently cannot comprehend the so called "twin paradox" commonly brought up in many science problem with relativistic phenomena. When the twins talk, do they exist at the same time or not?

    What definition of time do you prefer?

    Note that in my essay, I define "time" and "proper time" as rather different concepts.

    Sorry Paul but I do not think you comprehend my book. This essay essentially talks about the underlying issues which I had mistakenly presumed was quite obvious.

    Just as an aside, there exist quite a few flaws in modern physics. The main issue is the refusal to consider the detailed consequences of their theories. One excellent example is a detailed analysis of electromagnetic phenomena. Virtual photon exchange is used as the key to electromagnetic forces. But, as far as I am aware, no one has even considered the detailed consequences of actual exchange of photons from opposite charges. These are simply presumed to cancel out, yielding no consequences.

    However the actual exchange is presumed to be instantaneous and presuming they happen at exactly the same time is totally out of line. I have examined that issue and discovered a rather interesting consequence worth some attention.

    Dear Richard David,

    I think you are working on anti-relativity...you know who work against of it tries to conflict or origin some newness from the Einstein's assumption flattering within that but no one notices how such consequences appeared in Maxwell's equations...you know how we are wrong in displacement vector and permittivity assumptions..it is in my book giving such result of Constancy of light speed as a wrong approach, there are different parameters come along with it within the Maxwell's equations....there is more such stuff in the book..

    best regards

    I have a strong suspicion that you fail to comprehend my essay. Your English is not very good and I find it quite difficult to understand what you are trying to say. How about you find someone who speaks English well and have them post what you are trying to say.

    If you understood my presentation, you would comprehend that, in my presentation, motion and velocities are not defined in the initial picture. They are entirely free parameters which can be defined anyway one desires: i.e., they amount to nothing more than specific descriptions of phenomena embedded in the picture I present.

    One is free to define such things anyway one desires.

    Dear Richard David Stafford

    I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

    How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

    1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

    2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

    3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

    4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

    5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

    6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

    7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

    8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

    9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

    11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

    12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

    I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

    Héctor

    Dear Richard David,

    I think you are working on anti-relativity...you know the people who work against of relativity tries to conflict or origin some newness from the Einstein's assumption or his postulates, flattering within that but no one notices how such consequences appeared in Maxwell's equations (the key point to accept the universal speed of light)...you know how we are wrong in displacement vector and permittivity assumptions..it is in my book (reference 2 of my essay) giving such result of Constancy of light speed as a wrong approach, there are different parameters come along with it within the Maxwell's equations which doesn't permit light speed to be such....there are more such stuffs in the book..

    i think now you got it...if not, tell me specifically where didn't you got it..

    The numbers on my comments correspond to your numbers on your comments.

    1) I of the opinion that interest in the "unknown" must be a primary issue.

    2) It is actually rather worthless unless they find something they understand.

    3) Most "wander's" presume they understand what they are wandering around. A presumption their beliefs are valid.

    4) Thinking anything is impossible, "quasi" or otherwise, implies understanding of some sort. Would you please give me your definition of "understanding"?

    5) In order to find something to be unbelievable requires belief (sounds like a religion to me). Show me something to believe which does not require an underlying belief!

    6) Proved facts require belief in earlier interpretations of facts: i.e., the existence of prior unproven beliefs kind of cuts your attack to nothing.

    7) Oh, for happiness and satisfaction is the goal of your "understanding"? Back to your definition of "understanding" please.

    8) So your purpose is to provide the reader happiness and satisfaction? Sounds like religion to me.

    9) Here I have little argument with you. However I would like to understand why you find defining "understanding" to be so paradoxically adverse.

    11) Now here, is change in position with change in time a definition of velocity (as I would hold it to be) or rather a "measuring system", as you seem to hold it to be? Taken as a component in the definition of velocity makes no presumption of its existence. If you read my essay carefully I give a rather complete definition of both t and x. They are defined components of any language (and understanding is rather difficult to comprehend without a language). And, by the way, I have left "language" a rather undefined concept (except for its role in understanding)

    12)"The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages"??? I presume you are referring to my original submission. It had that length only because the original description I read for the essay said it was limited to 23 pages. The central issue I present was totally covered in the first 5 pages. Had I known of the limited intellectual ability of the readers here, I would have left it to those 5 pages. The remaining 18 pages merely show some interesting deductions which can be made from my definitions. I can show another thousand easily.

    Oh, I suspect the physicists are still in sore need of of comprehension of the problems which confront them and will still be in dire need of comprehension a hundred years from now.

    Héctor my original note to you was meant to be complementary as you are one of the few people here who seemed to show some comprehension of the problem. Sorry you took it the way you did.

    Dick

      Dear Dr. Richard David Stafford,

      Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

      I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

      Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

      The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

      A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      I am sorry but I have just read your essay and find your presentation to be far from "simple". It is entirely built on presumptions you have made based on what you think makes sense. Essentially is based on a collection of beliefs you have acquired. You are presuming I posses the same collection of beliefs.

      You should read part 3 of my Essay ignoring everything else.

      Mindless mathematics is the supposed starting point of these essays.

      Part 1 of my essay is no more than a comment that language is the first issue to be understood.

      Part 2 is no more than a comment that any communication (think language) can be transformed into collections of numbers. If you have any understanding of computers, you should be well aware of that fact.

      Part 3 is no more than a definition of Understanding.

      The rest of the essay is no more than a demonstration of how "mindless mathematics then yields some rather astounding facts. This is an issue I barely touch in my essay. The work can be extended a thousand fold easily.

      Take a look at part 3 and see if you are capable of comprehending my definition.

      Nice essay Stafford,

      Your ideas and thinking are excellent in page 9, your comments are good for eg...

      ........... it is not at all difficult to show that special relativistic effects are embedded in the mathematical model presented here. General relativity is more difficult to demonstrate though it can also be shown that the relationships are embedded in the model I have presented (since the equations essentially embody the entire universe, defining an accelerating frame of reference is not a trivial issue).

      .............................. At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, 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

      25 days later

      Dear Sirs!

      Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

      New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

      New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

      Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

      Sincerely,

      Dizhechko Boris