Eckard,

I found your essay excellently conceived, written and argued this year. I consider it your best one by far. It also helped ease of reading that you 'word ordering' phasing has improved.

I found little to question in the content. I never did consider Fourier Transforms fundamental or complete solutions so we're in agreement. I also found a number of other areas where our essays agree.

But will the academic community reconsider current views? The answer came long ago when respected Imperial College electrical engineer Eric Laithwaite in a Royal Institute Christmas lecture correctly pointed out & demonstrated that physics had 'missed' something important.

Of course physicists all thanked him and rushed to correct it -- in some imaginary universe!! What actually happened was they complained, didn't even consider the new science and lobbied the Dean to remove him from the university. That attitude is what has to change in physics. Luckily the Dean was intelligent and offered to remove THEM if they had a problem!

Within 10yrs theory evolved a little to confound the inconsistencies. Even now we hear academia mostly agreeing fundamental change is due but when any coherent theory varying from current ones is posited all rush to entirely ignore it. Probably out of fear.

Very well written this year Eckard. Top marks coming. By the way my essay this year along with Declan Traill's not only agrees there's NO time reversal but other parts of yours if not quite all, and completes the removal of stupidities in QM. Of course most will run & hide for 10 years. I'll be interested in your thoughts & comments.

I hope you're keeping well. Very best.

Peter

PS; Have you done antenna design? How much can you tell about me where Maxwell's TZ is placed for any wavelength? and what happens at that near/far field transformation zone. I do have a theory that resolves all which I've discussed & cleared with EE's in the field but am interested in your analysis.

    Peter,

    I am not sure, did you really understand why my boss admitted that my basic argument is "sowas von" fundamental? The nine FQXi contests pushed me to investigate it's consequences from various perspectives. You might decide yourself how it agrees with your own effort.

    Starting from physiology of hearing I follow Claude Shannon's formulation of causality: Only what already happened can absolutely not be influenced.

    Therefore, the border between past and future is the only non-arbitrary reference point for an, admittedly quite uncommon in theory, notion of time: elapsed time.

    I guess, TZ stands for transition zone between near field and far field. Being a bit familiar with antenna design since my last boss is an expert in ground penetrating radar, I can tell you that the two components of an em field are quite different: The fictitious evanescent component doesn't propagate. In contrast to the ideal distinction between past and future with nothing in between, this component of the near field it is gradually decreasing.

    Incidentally, an essay by David ? guided me to the insight how QM got unnecessarily complex.

    Being aware of my poor English, I would even more appreciate you criticising the content of my nine essays.

    Maybe you can also help me to read the formulas in Klingman's essay and his related paper. My old office program cannot properly print the used symbols. Do you have similar problems? What can I do?

    My health is fine again, thank you.

    Best,

    Eckard

    Eckard,

    I thought I understood but you've raised doubts. I'm very familiar with Elapsed Time as it's a fundamental concept in yacht handicap computations, mainly 'out & back' but also A to B. I also recall you past interpretations, and indeed, checking back, Davids essay, which I agree with.

    Davids concept agrees with my vacuum with local 'presence' as fundamental, and that QM's nonsensical interpretation is a barrier to understanding. What I (and Declan) have done is shown that 'blockage' can be removed. Also 'backward causation!' Of course it won't be countenanced by those in the field, most outside won't understand it, and the few between will mainly run and hide! C'est la vie.

    Aside from but consistent with that classical resolution is re-emissions at 'c' in all fermion rest frames. There is then no problem with a rational SR for any other theory, falsifiable or not, to 'solve'. Your concept may well be ok, but it matters not as as measurement (requiring an interaction) must find c in the local frame naturally. (46c quasar jet pulses in collimations observed by displacement rate from the side do NOT need interaction with the pulse so don't violate 'c'!) Of course 'agreement' is not a scoring criteria anyway.

    I'm happy to help with phrases & symbols if I can. Don't pdf's solve the symbol issue? I can Email a pdf or word file of Edwins if that helps, contact on pj.ukc.edu@physics.org. or ask Edwin about meaning because I'm not confident. I agree Vladimir's (and your) views on maths.

    On phrases, you're prone to putting long qualifiers/descriptors before the subject, which is unfamiliar and disruptive; as in.; "The observation of, viewed from the side by angular displacement by NASA at

    Peter,

    I don't understand what you meant with "your past interpretations", my interpretations of the past, or previous interpretations of mine?

    Anyway, what I am calling the past is a domain of reality that is concrete and quite different from the realms of future possibilities as well as from the usual abstract "timeless" notion of time.

    Everybody with common sense understands that her/his age counts backward in usual time, and that the point of reference for this age is permanently sliding relative to the commonly agreed point t=0 of reference.

    There is no escape for another reason: The choice of t=0 e.g. in Christian science is not by chance but necessarily an arbitrary one in contrast to the actual border between what already happened and what will possibly happen.

    The usual notion of time with its arbitrarily chosen point of reference fulfills most but not ALL requirements of theories in an elegant manner: Our ears cannot hear future sound, and they have also no knowledge which event of reference Greenwhich refers to. Therefore I am attributing a key role to the very moment, of course only in reality. The time scales of abstract theories can be shifted, flipped or otherwise manipulated at will.

    When I asked for help I hoped at first for your confirmation that your computer and printer correctly shows all symbols. On a second step you could tell me what program you are using in order to correctly see for instance Greek letters too. I don't doubt that Edwin used pdfs as did I.

    What might be wrong with my computer/printer/software? In many but not all cases, I am familiar with the formulas and able to guess what the strange square-shaped place holders stand for. This is demanding to me.

    Eckard

    Eckard,

    I meant 'previous interpretations of yours', which is the convention. Otherwise I'd refer to 'THE past', (as you write above). Anyway I have no issues with your conception or description. It has relevance to light etc. The great Anton Zeilinger's work at Vienna has proved his conclusion that when light interacts with a polarizer and changes state etc. "it has no memory of it's previous states". that is an important finding fully consistent with current quantum optics finding but yet poorly considered by most in terms of wider theory. (It did however confirm the foundational predictions of my model back to pre 2010).

    Your problem with rectangles is common to most word processing programmes and very many symbols & formula. None of mine can translate, but the pdf reads fine. Best to Edwin which programme he uses.

    Sorry I can't help more, but if you'd like me to proof any writing for you I'd be pleased to.

    Very best.

    Peter

    Peter,

    After you clarified that "past" is meant as "previous", and perhaps "you" should read "your", I can still not yet understand for sure what you meant with

    "I also recall you past interpretations, and indeed, checking back, Davids essay, which I agree with."

    Maybe a verb is missing that should refer to David's essay?

    Anyway, you pretend agreeing with both him and and me, although I merely appreciate guiding me to the insight that quantum physics got implicitely complex much earlier than in 1924/25.

    Eckard

    John,

    Phipps and now Klingman provided a strong defense of ubiquitous simultaneity.

    According to http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/A-Theory.pdf , presentism is an extreme form of McTaggart's A-theory. That's why Klingman and I don't completely share it.

    Is there at all a present state? Certainly it is - however only if we blur the clear distinction between what already happened and what will happen.

    For instance, the state of today includes a part of the past and a part of the future. So it is a fuzzy notion.

    I criticize Einstein's denial of the distinction between past, PRESENT, and future not just as Parmenidean block view but also because in my strict understanding there is no PRESENT timespan between past and future. A point is something that has no parts.

    I agree with Shannon on that the past cannot be influenced while the future of anything is entirely open to more or less erratic and therefore not entirely predictable influences.

    You repeatedly used the metaphor of something moving from future into the past. In this picture one must not ignore the fundamental change at the point of border crossing.

    I hope you can agree and support me,

    Eckard

    Eckard,

    Quite simple; Put that way the statement "I recall" applied to both your past interpretations and Davids essay.

    Why 'pretend agreeing'? I DID agree with all I referred to, as identified. But for clarity I then also noted the differences in our ideas which I'd analysed and discussed in detail as I'm sure you'll recall. I also found much agreement with Davids ideas. If I disagreed I'd certainly say so and why.

    I meant to complete the point on antenna and Maxwell's near far field TZ. It's easier in air etc as antenna engineers know it's ~1 micron for short waves and most of Earths atmosphere in the red. That's also Lorentz's transform as it deals with different states of background motion!!

    But lets see if we can do it for ground radar. If you approached a body rapidly and emitted radar at the same time as a friend emitted it at rest on the surface,

    1) would the signals propagate in the ground at the same v? Yes?

    2) Would yours be 'blue shifted'? Yes?

    3) Would yours then have an 'additional' speed change over his due to your v.

    Think carefully. Presently SR takes NO account of the 'kinetic' speed change of EM signals which is additional to that due to medium index 'n'. In water, air and space it takes ever longer as the medium particles are ever more diffuse.

    Is that not a physical change of speed to local c (or c/n) due to absorption and re-emission at the TZ?

    Best

    Peter

      My essay doesn't deal with c/n, your re-emission theory, and your "kinetic" speed changes of EM signals. Also, it doesn't treat the speed c of light in vacuum just a local quantity.

      Did you read my essay at all?

      Eckard,

      The important questions are for your thought and considered responses, if you wish, not because I mistakenly thought you'd already considered & answered them in the essay, which, as you confirm, you hadn't.

      If you don't wish to you only need to say so rather than suggest I hadn't read your essay!

      Peter

      Hi Eckard Blumschein

      You are really a wonderful mathematician! Your words...CT and FT are equivalent to each other except for an arbitrarily added to the latter point of reference, and subjectively chosen references are definitely less fundamental than non-arbitrary ones. Semi-fundamental constructs dear Eckard Blumschein. I got small question for you.... Can FT or CT work for multivariable business forcasting?

      ...... very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

      I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

      Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

      -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 GR on any condition

      -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

      -No many mini Bigbangs

      -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

      -No Dark energy

      -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

      -No Multi-verses

      Here:

      -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

      -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

      -All bodies dynamically moving

      -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

      -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

      -Single Universe no baby universes

      -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

      -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

      -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

      -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

      -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

      -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

      -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

      -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

      - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

      I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

      Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

      In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

      I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

      Best

      =snp

        I don't know why my reply disappeared. This is a copy:

        - "Can FT or CT work for multivariable business forcasting?"

        FT with analytic continuation as well as CT are methods to perform a spectral analysis of already measured data, not immediately a forecast. What do you mean by multivariable business?

        While I didn't deal with models of the universe and I don't intend doing so, I will have a brief look at your model of our universe as soon as possible.

        So far, I am happy that you found out and pointed to a rather amazing fundamental argument from my 9th essay. My most fundamental assumption is causality. -

        Let me add:

        As a rule, reality is more fundamental than theory. The territory is more fundamental than its map. As a rule means, there are a few fabricated apparent exceptions.

        Already the abstract of my essay must not be ignored:

        "APPLICATION of complex Fourier transform (FT) on functions of time f(t) was in the 20th century and is perhaps still considered as a if not the most fundamental mathematical method of physics and technology. Actually, FT is a tool that doesn't immediately fit to measured data of real processes."

        Eckard Blumschein

        Peter,

        My essay deals with redundancies. You demonstrated to me that abundant redundancy may sometimes be very helpful. When you wrote "Best to Edwin which programme he used", I again felt forced to guess what you meant. Meanwhile I prefer the following interpretation: "It might be best to ask Edwin which programme he used."

        The reason why I didn't understand your use of the word past as previous was my wrong guess that it referred to something that didn't relate to my current essay.

        Zeilinger's observation that light "has no memory of it's previous states" after interaction with a polarizer sounds reasonable to me. I too imagine in this case the possibility of a re-emission with randomized alternatives of parameters like spin or direction. However, I have to admit that this is just a layman's guess of mine which has nothing to do with my essay.

        Best,

        Eckard

        I should have anticipated that there are people like Gupta who don't read my essay carefully enough as to understand and accept my hopefully compelling reasoning.

        Of course, the matter is truly fundamental.

        I got so far three times rated by the public: 7+4+2.

        May I hope for factual critics too?

        Eckard Blumschein

          Dear snp,

          While I still suspect you didn't read my essay carefully, I have to admit, I for my part am inclined to agree on an emotional "layman" basis with almost all of the many opinions you listed.

          Let me just discuss this one:

          "-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe".

          Hmm. Of course, the word universe means there is only one reality. In this sense, I too see it as closed as also is the so called absolute Archimedean infinity in contrast to Bernoulli/Leibniz/Cantor's relative infinities.

          Nonetheless, Sommerfeld's radiation condition is certainly not wrong:

          Radiation is never reflected from infinity.

          I still didn't manage reading your essay and related stuff.

          Best,

          Eckard

          Dear Eckard

          Thank you for the reply...

          I was talking about SVM the Support Vector Machines in Regression Analysis for multivariable business forecasting. FT is a powerful tool I suppose it can be used....

          Your analysis is correct, fundamental is causality.

          Best Regards

          =snp

          Dear Eckard,

          I dont rate people low, give 10 or 9 or just refrain from rating that essay as a rule...

          Best Regards

          =snp

          Dear snp,

          Decades ago, a professor Schwarz from South Africa made me aware of the nonsensicality of integrating over time from minus infinity to plus infinity in case of lacking support (in mathematical language). Analytic continuation is formally correct but it can also be understood as a sort of self deception.

          This doesn't mean that FT and one-sided Laplace transformation are not excellent tools in case of prediction. I merely don't accept as a pillar of reality the seemingly mandatory tenet of block time which denies the strict distinction between past and future. Well, the far past is about as unknown as is the far future. However, I agree with Popper and Shannon, see my essay "Shannon's view on Wheeler's belief": The past is closed (finished) but the future is open.

          In other words, no matter how successful a model might be, I consider the agreement between prediction and reality always uncertain to some extent.

          One cannot predict the past. A frequency analysis of the future is only possible if one denies possible deviations of reality from model. Only the nonsensical denial of reality including the denial of the now by Einstein fits to performing a frequency analysis of the past simultaneously with a prediction of the future.

          I see reality a conjecture rather than a model.

          Perhaps one of the first ones who sucessfully predicted and benefited from the ups and downs of a stock market was Gauss. Perhaps the first one who predicted a thunderstorm on scientific basis was Guericke. Such predictions are still uncertain.

          By the way, I hope you will convince those in the public who felt entitled to downrate my essay: They too should read my essay more carefully.

          Best regards,

          Eckard

          Dear Eckard,

          Thank you for Nice logic

          Closed universe... logical analysis is one thing, Mathematically calculating on Dynamic Universe Model Sita is another.... Thats what I did.....

          35 years of working on Dynamic Universe Model without any support really hurts me. Now I came to fag end of life, why should I lower any person? I believe in God and Karma.... I did not yet gave any ranking yet to your essay. Please give me mail to snp.gupta@gmail.com, I will intimate you when I do that...

          I dont rate people low, give 10 or 9 or just refrain from rating that essay as a rule...

          Believe me somebody else did it...

          Best Regards