Vladimir,

Lovely essay, as usual, very readable, straight to the point and beautifully illustrated. Also we agree on all fundamentals and most other things as usual, except a couple of minor matters this year I'll raise below. In particular I like your important point that AE was; "..ready until the end of his life to question his own ideas and to abandon them if new and contradictory evidence emerged. It is high time we physicists do the same." Never a truer or more important word written!

Your 2nd Fig. shows SR linked direct to QM. Of course the current formulations are inconsistent (Penrose agrees)as QM uses 'absolute' time. I've identified in this and previous essays that SR does of course work with absolute time as long as local speed modulation to c is by local interactions. I see you agree that in a blog comment above, but might your lovely fig. not be mistaken as suggesting otherwise?

Similarly the ether as a 'carrying' medium. Reverting from condensed particle interactions (re-emission at each particles local c whatever speed it's doing wrt anything else) ) to the condensate itself even with it's density variations would only takes us back to the great 100yr old problem that SR a was designed to solve. Did you really mean that? (if so how is it solved?) or is your blog comment above the better description (your previously position).

I was also a little concerned about your seeming to dismiss ANY 'duality', when clearly the re-emissions from interactions with fermions locally 're-quantize' the wave energy, which then spreads again ('as the Schrodinger sphere'). Reading again more carefully you don't dismiss that, so as always; 'banner headlines' can be misunderstood. Is my analysis correct? (really just 'nit-picking' semantics!) Overall I agree four square again, and enjoyed the read. It really is a beautiful universe!

I do think and hope you'll also like mine this year, which I think you'll see reveals an important hidden truth about so called 'probability'. Of course cognitive dissonance will still render it invisible to most! I hope you'll also watch the video which is far better at showing the dynamics.

https://vimeo.com/195020202

Very best

Peter

Hi Peter nice to encounter you again this year!

Thank you for your lavish praise of some aspects of my essay - I do get away with my distracting illustrations! But seriously you are right to question some of the headline statements and implications especially in Fig. 2 QM has so many aspects that saying it always contradicts SR is not true, for example in the case of the Dirac Equation. But yes flexible time and space have no place, say in the Schrödinger Eq.

I could not understand what you wrote about the ether- in my Beautiful Universe model the ether is discrete and local speed is only a maximum c in pure vacuume, but is slower in energized or gravitational zones.

Oh and of course one can say there is duality when a wave is absorbed and emitted as a point which then spreads again as a wave. I was referring to the Duality with a capital D that got in people's minds leading to Probability as if it were a fact of Nature not merely a mathematical convenience.

The vimeo link does not work. fqxi adds html//: to any address regardless, but even when I deleted that, vimeo did not have 195020202

Again thank you and best of luck. I will read your essay of course.

Vladimir

    Dear Vladimir,

    Thank you for kindly words.

    Let me just say that alpha is not only important but it can be the key (given by God!) that may open the microcosm in whole!

    The electron's model (with all known its parameters) are represented there (see Refs. in my essay)

    Be well, in the science as well in your art!

    Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

    I estimate your essay very highly.

    Perhaps my essay will complement your understanding of the causality of quantum processes. Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded.

    Kind regards,

    Vladimir Fedorov

    Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

    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

    Shokran Vladimir,

    Now I understand that you really has an artist's soul.

    I also understand that for you it is more important human attitude than other things! So, we can talk long and to say many nice things each to other, but let me just stop on two your remarks. 1. On scientists - protestants. Yes, there are unbelievable number of oppositions in present physics, who are under global pressing of "official science." And no need go so far to find them, my friend - we can find someone right here! I mean Eugeny Klingman, for example, who goes now on the top. God help to him (but I have doubt!) we will see! You can find many of them, using google even.

    2. About role of Einstein: There are 3 Einstein for me; early, medium and last. First one is what you say. The second one was who already get huge success (by some specific way for known to you kind of people.) But for us it must be more important a third Einstein, when he have understand that he has done many wrong things then he tried to catch shaitan and put again in the bottle ... but it was already out of his power! THEY had say him - thank you "habibi" what you have done, but now you must go away ... and he become one very tragic person, to end of his life!

    Be well, my friend.

    Thank you George we are on the same side, and you are absolutely right Eugene Klingman is one of the formost of the independent physicists. Of course I have long realized there are so many brilliant researchers opposing the mainstream physics. One of them is the late Gabriel La Frenier

    Matter is Made of Waves

    Best of luck!

    Vladimir

      Thank you Jo

      I have a feeling you did not read my essay, but I have enjoyed yours and responded on your page.

      Best wishes

      Vladimir

      Vladimir, I says the same! (Matter is Made of Waves)

      But we need to add here - these (waves) are circularly polarised - ie wave-vortex.

      Best of luck!

      Nice essay Vladimir Tamari,

      Your ideas and thinking are excellent

      1. A much simpler theory of gravity is possible: in a gravitational field the local energy density of the ether acts like an optical field of variable index of refraction, bending light as it does in a desert mirage, where heat creates layers of air with decreasing density, refracting light and make it curve.

      2. Enter Cellular Automata

      It sounds easier to banish, ditch, jettison or drop the cornerstones of 20th century

      physics than to reconstruct it anew from first principles.

      A Good proposal , I fully agree with you............

      ..................... 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

      Dear Vladimir Tamari,

      I am sure having uttered so many uncommon views that I cannot expect any support or at least serious criticism except from those like you.

      On p. 7 of my essay I defined the constant speed c of light in vacuum as follows:

      "c equals to the distance between positions of arrival at the moment of arrival and of the emitter at the moment of emission divided by the time of flight".

      I am trying to benefit from the trifle that a distance doesn't need coordinates.

      Best,

      Eckard

      Hi Tamari,

      You have created another beautiful world with this essay. Thank you so much.

      One of your points caught me by surprise!

      "A much simpler theory of gravity is possible: in a gravitational field the local energy density of the ether acts like an optical field of variable index of refraction, bending light as it does in a desert mirage, where heat creates layers of air with decreasing density, refracting light and make it curve. This idea was first presented by Arthur Eddington , the man whose eclipse observations proved that a star's gravity curves light, just as GR predicted, thereby catapulting Einstein into world fame."

      I thought I invented this a few months back!..... You go on to say: "In my own theory of gravity this density isdue to the spin of qubit-like dielectric nodes making up the ether lattice, the proposed building blocks of the Universe."

      I call your qubit-like dielectric nodes ...gravitons. Check out Prespacetime Journal paper:

      Prespacetime Journal | December 2016 | Volume 7 | Issue 16 | pp. 102-114

      Limuti, D., A Quantum Mechanical View of the Precession of Mercury's Orbit

      Or just email me at don.limuti@gmail.com and I will send it. It is really simple...really.

      Such a pleasure to be in another contest with you,

      Don Limuti

      Here is a Bucky quote to keep us sane: "To ask a politician to lead us is to ask the tail of a dog to lead the dog."

      • [deleted]

      • Post #33

      Hi Satyavarapu - thank you kindly please excuse the delay I will read your interesting ideas and respond soon.

      Hi Eckard - ditto! When you say "people like you" you mean ... ?? haha don't worry I think I understand.

      Hi Don,glad you liked the paper. Way to go about gravity being a density of.. something! In my United Dipole Field of 1993 I showed how the electric field of a dipole behaves like a gradient-index gravity field. In Beautiful Universe Model I generalized the concept to the Universe as a whole and added the concept of twisting spin fields to create gravitational attraction. I see from your website that you have attacked the gravity concept more analytically, but isn't using the term graviton confusing because you see it differently than the Standard Model particle. I look foreward to reading your paper requested from Research-Gate.

      Best wishes, and good luck to us all.

      Vladimir

      Hi Vladimir,

      I downloaded your papers. The United Dipole 1093 looks very interesting to me at a scan. I will read in detail in a bit. We have similar concepts cloaked in different words. I too believe the space between stars looks a dielectric material (I would call it a prism with a gradient index of refraction). And my hijacked graviton looks very much like a dipole antenna!

      Yes, I hijacked the graviton from the standard model and gave it some new clothes..... The standard model was not putting it good use anyway :)

      I consider a single graviton to be a photon with a single hop (wavelength) that hops back and forth between chunks of mass (Planck masses). I call it a photon because it obeys the Planck Einstein equation, but it is not really a photon because of its spin (it hops back and forth). The big deal is that this action gives it a mass (like photons trapped between mirrors).

      I considered all this playing around kinda nuts, but I gave my new "hijacked" graviton a run at calculating the precession of Mercury....it worked! How can I say...the planet Vulcan lives!

      I believe this may be a small "crack in the cosmic egg" that can lead to useful science and technology. I also believe that this result is not a contradiction GR, but I cannot prove this. So, I am calling on FQXi.org cosmologists, to take a look at this and see if gravity can be made understandable.

      And your work Vladimir, was pioneering in this area.

      Thanks,

      Don Limuti

      Hi Vladimir,

      You realized my worst scientific nightmare! I DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE EINSTEIN'S THEORIES DO NOT WORK!!!!!!!

      In any case, your Essay is pleasant and provocative and gave me fun. Thus, I decided to give you the highest score. Good luck in the Contest, I hope that you will have a chance to read our Essay, where Einstein's Universe works in a good way!

      Cheers, Ch.

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2862

        Thank you Don

        Your graviton has a life of its own if it can calculate the precession of Mercury- bravo!

        There is a lot of overlap in ideas of researchers at any given time. When I was writing my Beautiful Universe model I chanced on a web page full of equations of a universe made of dipoles - I did not understand the math and lost the url. Likewise an ether made up of dielectric units was speculated on by Maxwell, then by Hertz before he died, and alas When Einstein 'abolished' the ether speculation along those lines died out until our generation revived the concept.

        More power to you.

        Vladimir

        Dear Christian

        Sorrrrreeeeeeeee! I know that Einstein brilliantly wrapped up many concepts in his theories, and they are beautiful in terms of predictive power, in the esoteric world of 'spacetime' in GR's magic but forbidding difficulty of application, and was initially puzzled by duality. I never learned to use his results in in detail but understood how they were built from basic premises. By all means keep Einstein but thank you for allowing speculation on a simpler more unified and streamlined physics inspired by his results but not using his methods.

        More power to you. I shall read your paper.

        Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

        Thank you for the post on my essay...

        Thank you for your blessings given to this essay so kindly. You are definitely qualified sir for the judgement.Thank you once again for your such nice complements.

        Best Regards

        =snp.gupta

        5 days later

        Vladimir,

        Yes the ether as discrete zones with local inertial states would work fine, as we've discussed before, and the 'waves must be fluctuations of 'something' even if not matter. Perhaps I rushed reading your description this year. What I suggest is that it's also the case that as the condensed matter (fermion pairs) always evident couples with light to modulate it to local c, then ether doesn't need to also do that job.

        Sorry about the link. Sometimes the odd space kills them! I'll give you all 3;

        Vimeo; Full.

        Vimeo 100 sec glimpse

        you tube 100 sec

        All seem to be alive, at least for now! Do comment or question. The good news is I notice I hadn't applied your (top!) score so a hike is coming.

        It's a beautiful universe! Very best.

        Peter