Re "There is only motion":

Yes, but what causes this "motion"? The laws of physics are merely relationships. The laws of physics attempt to represent change of number via the delta symbol, but they don't explain why change of number should ever occur. The laws of physics assume change of number, but physics has no explanation for change of number.

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Let me guess: You are hoping for more attention to your 57 pages paper „Everything's relative, or is it?". Did you therefore refuse discussing just selected details at FQXi ? Can you please guide me to forums that are better suited?

Being a German, I understand "or is it" in the cautiously doubting naïve sense of "oder etwa nicht". Having read decisive parts of your paper at least twice, I am sure that you definitely meant: Lorentz' local time was a step into the wrong direction. Time as to be used in technology doesn't relate on velocity.

One has to either follow the mainstream and believe in Einstein's Relativity (I am capitalizing beliefs) including paradoxical length contraction, time dilution, and Relativistic addition of velocities or share Michelson's agnostic opinion and considering Relativity a useless monster.

Your fictitious AE defends his Relativity of time with two apparently strong arguments:

- Lorentz' gamma has been proven useful in HEP.

- While length contraction and time dilution were never directly measured, in particular myon decay can be interpreted in terms of time dilution.

I consider your counter arguments compelling:

- Gamma belongs to energy (and frequency) i.e. time squared, not to time.

- Apparent time dilution can be attributed to Doppler's even stronger apparent effect.

Strictly distinguish between past and future I see time and energy a conjugated cosine transformation pair. Therefore I don't hide my skepticism concerning "space-time symmetry" and Emilia Noether.

Being not familiar with Heaviside's analogies, I cannot imagine how gravity may act like a medium. I rather am ready to ascribe physical quantities like e.g. impedance to the fields in space.

I prefer attributing Sagnac's effect to the existence of a reference point in case of rotation in contrast to the reference-less linear shift.

With high respect to you as perhaps the first one who comes close to the truth,

Sincerely Yours,

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Lorraine,

The initial cause of motion is force. The laws of physics are attempts to explain laws of nature. There is no numbers in the nature. The numbers are imagination of human mind. In the nature are merely forcefields and its sources (mass, charge etc). All other arise from mutual action of forces.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

    Dear Eckard,

    When I began ~2 years ago I believed special relativity was simple. I no longer believe that. Over a year's effort produced 'Everything's Relative, or is it?' and I hope to soon publish another 6 months follow on effort. I often spend 2 to 3 hours face to face with quite competent physicists (all older) and know how very hard it is to "unlearn" Relativity concepts.

    Einstein embedded his false premise (multiple times) in his definition of inertial reference frame and formulated all of his principles and postulates in terms of inertial reference frames. Thus the game is lost before it begins. One accepts his false premise or one cannot discuss relativity. This leads to length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, etc.

    I claim gamma is an inertial factor, applied to mass, NOT velocity, whether in particle physics or in inertial clocks. This causes real clocks to slow down because their increased inertia resists the restoring force (accel) common to all oscillating systems, and accounts for 'time dilation'.

    The gravitational field has energy and is physically a real 'medium' in which light can propagate. This 'ether' equivalent establishes a preferred frame, canceling Einstein's "no preferred frame" as the basis of "space-time symmetry".

    I wish that you and I could meet face-to-face. It would be enjoyable and far more efficient than these comments. My opinion is that reading the essay four or five times would be necessary to understand well the alternate theory.

    Thank you for suggesting that my theory is correct.

    My very best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    "1) Einstein hid his false premise in the definition of inertial reference frame and then based all axioms on this".

    I rather directly attribute his key mistake to the obvious misuse of Poincarè synchronization based on two reference frames.

    Ilgaitis,

    Re "There is only motion" [1]; "The initial cause of motion is force" [2]:

    Yes, a force is a result of a quantum mechanical particle interaction, involving quantum jumps, that changes the motion of particles. But the motion of things is closely related to the question of time: how would we detect time if we never observed motion?

    The laws of physics don't change, so how does physics represent motion, given a frame of reference? Motion can be thought of as a change in the numbers that apply to some of the variables (e.g. position, velocity, acceleration, energy, momentum) in the equations that comprise the laws of physics [3]. These laws don't ever initiate number change: the laws of physics merely represent number change relationships using the delta symbol. But seemingly all number changes in the universe are initiated by quantum mechanics e.g. the quantum jumps in particle interactions.

    So, our sense of time comes from the number changes initiated by (what we call) quantum mechanics.

    1. Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 18, 2019 @ 11:17 GMT

    2. Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Mar. 20, 2019 @ 10:46 GMT

    3. The laws of physics are assumed to represent laws of nature.

    "The gravitational field has energy". Well, this is common opinion and it applies to other fields too.

    I don't exclude that fields in 3D ARE rather than have energy even if we may imagine them as the sum of particles/quanta. How to unlearn Maxwell's hypothetic medium?

    Dear Lorraine,

    Thank you, now I understand that we are talking about different things. You writing about difficulties of quantum mechanics to interpret the time and movement, but I am talking about movement of celestial bodies. In the my case no problems to observe motion of Sun or Moon. My sense of time is based on motion of Sun. There is no need for quantum mechanics.

    Do you look at everything from a Quantum Field Theory (QFT) perspective?

    QFT, like all mainstream physics, is based on the assumption that space is eternal endless container. It is "free imagination of human mind" (Einstein). This leads to many unsolved conundrums.

    I prefer facts: there is expanding Universe with mass and therefore gravity. All other (space, time, etc.) are consequences of that. As a result, all physics puzzles vanish.

    Best regards

    Ilgaitis

    Ilgaitis,

    I probably essentially agree with part of what you are saying:

    I would say that space and time are not the most fundamental things that structure the universe: space and time information is derived from other types of information, via information relationships (i.e. law of nature relationships).

    Space and time information, and seemingly all other information about the universe, is subjective information, not absolute information. I.e. the categories of information (e.g. "space", "time") seem to be somewhat absolute, but the numbers that apply to the categories are not absolute.

    Lorraine

    Hi, Lorraine

    If I understood correctly you think the information is primary. Everything else (matter, space, time etc) comes from information. If so, there is question: what is information? I have not been able to find the definition of information.

    Ilgaitis

      Hi,you can consider informations like codes sent from the center of our universal sphere,the central biggest BH sending primordial informations implying all.The waves particles duality is correlated.In my model of spherisation,I consider quantum sphères sent from this central cosmological singularity and they are'coded'implying'properties'of'matters'and'waves'energy Inside this space time.Informations can be ranked and of course we must differenciate the primordial informations with others kinds. Regards

      The Density also can be studied for the ranking of different informations.The spherical volumes also like the thermodynamics corrélations and QFT.The importance correlated with the sortings,synchros or superimposings so appears and so the ranking.

      Ilgaitis,

      Information is all we have about ourselves, our world and the universe. But we know the rest of the world and the universe exists independent to ourselves e.g. because we don't choose to be maimed and killed in car accidents, and we don't choose to drown in a tsunami. However, we are not 100% independent of the world and the universe, because we realise that we are part of the world and the universe.

      Information is what is represented symbolically e.g. as words, sentences and equations. These symbols representing information are written on paper, spoken as soundwaves, or stored and manipulated in computers (where the representations are re-represented as binary digits). We can assume that, underneath all the representations, is something real: something that is not a representation. Law of nature relationships, mass, velocity, space and time are real. However, it is clear that mass, velocity, space and time are relationships, and relationship between relationships.

      As observers, information is our context with respect to the rest of the world. Information is not relationships between things (e.g. observers, chairs and piles of sand are things). Information is relationships between our knowledge of things. If there is such a thing as objectively true information, it is not useful to us: the only useful information is contextual information.

      Lorraine

        Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

        I asked "how to unlearn Maxwell's hypothetic (light carrying) medium?". When Einstein himself uttered: we don't need the ether, this additionally contributed to massive distrust among the 100 authors who naively focused on paradoxes that are deeper rooted in Maxwell's hypothesis of a medium analog to air that carries sound. Why was the ether felt as an indispensable credo to Lorentz? Shouldn't he have realized that acoustic media are subject to various physical influences on the wave speed, e.g. what gas, temperature, pressure, wind, etc. while electromagnetic waves may propagate within empty space with universally constant speed c?

        You mentioned (on p. 14) that Einstein referred to "Fizeau's experiment upon which I [Einstein] based my special theory of relativity". I overlooked this detail. Can you please give a reference?

        More than a decade agoI attended a conference in Pine Mountain which is not too much remote from your residence (in Huntington/Alabama?). Meanwhile I didn't even leave my home in Magdeburg for properties near Berlin. So there is no chance for a face-to-face conversation.

        I am however ready to take issue concerning what I consider to be better explained including the 2c fallacy.

        My very best regards

        Eckard Blumschein

          Hi Lorraine,thanks for sharing your ideas,it is well explained.Regards

          Hi, Lorraine

          This is the best explanation of the information which I have ever read.

          Best regards

          Ilgaitis

          It is well explained but we need to rank and differenciate the informations.For example we have primordial informations in our quantum series implying properties.We have the binar informations invented by us the humans and we have informations due to communication and encodings in brains.That permits to better understand the consciousness even in considering the 3 main systems.

          "Existence" takes meaning from its logical opposite, nothingness.

          Existence from nothingness is not possible because of the rule of non-contradiction.

          But, between "existence" and "nothingness", a dynamic process can happen, which is neither.

          So, we have a dynamic process. Starts as a small point. But look out the window and it is a big universe. This process is spontaneous (nobody is pushing) and generating (makes more units of itself, not superimposable= big universe). A spontaneous and generating process is .... An explosive process. The Big Bang was not an event. It was the beginning of a spontaneous process that is still happening right now.

          The whole universe is made of this substance-process which, in its simplest form, we call TIME. This is why, as we know, at the atomic and sub-atomic level everything moves, jiggles, vibrates, ... by itself.

          Dark matter is just this time process clumping on itself and giving the impression (effect) that we interpret as the presence of some unseen dark mass...

          See my last essay for more details

          Marcel,

          Steve and Ilgaitis,

          Thanks for your vote of confidence in my description of information. But please note that my view of information is not physics' view of information.

          I distinguish:

          1) information, which has inherent context with respect to the rest of reality; from

          2) A) coded representations of information (e.g. words, numbers, equations, binary digits are coded representations), and B) mathematical calculations of probability performed on coded representations (which results in a number i.e. Shannon information), where both A and B are symbolic representations which have no inherent context with respect to the rest of reality.

          I'm saying information is an observer's subjective experience of relationship and context, where this relationship and context is real: it is not a symbolic or coded representation of relationships and context. Physics is saying that information is objective facts, symbolic representations without context.

          Physics' view of information is muddled, and somewhat mystical, because physics fails to distinguish between information and coded representations of information. Physics usually believes that coded information IS information. And physics contends that numbers that have no context, can have "surprise value" or equivalently "reduction in ignorance/uncertainty", and that this surprise value is a feature of information.