Deciding on the nature of time and space by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

You mentioned "inertial mass m = γ m0" and, given the relatively recent controversy over relativistic mass, I wonder what your view on that is.

Best wishes,

Vesselin

The message did not reach, I am sending again.

Dear Edwin,

Glad to read your work again.

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

Dear Edwin,

I think relativistic mass is an experimental fact - see:

1. (PDF file): On Relativistic Mass - Appendix by the Editor to A. Einstein, Relativity[/I] (Minkowski Institute Press, Montreal 2018) - a volume with five works by Einstein (http://www.minkowskiinstitute.org/mip/books/einstein.html)

2. Mass does increase with velocity (http://www.minkowskiinstitute.org/relmass.html)

Above I wrote "I think"; you also write "my view is". If interested in what should be done when there are so many people with so many different views of the same world, you could have a look at my latest reply on my essay's page.

Best wishes,

Vesselin

Edwin:

A new era dawns.聽 Old questions become quaint and historical.聽 Is the whole community ready?聽 Or is physical reality too dangerous for our collective understanding at this time?

Edwin, I generally agree that mathematics shouldn't be subordinated to physics.

But regarding your take on Relativity:

Observer A is moving 10 seconds (sec) in time and is considered to be at rest. Observer B is moving uniformly at .9c relative to A, and so moves 9 light-seconds (ls) in that time. According to Relativity, and the Lorentz transformation, they will each observe the other's clock to have only ticked 4.36 sec (t' = t(sqrt(1-.9^2)) = 10*sqrt(.19) = 4.36.

Now we need to consider the motion of a third body C relative to each. C is moving in the same direction as B. A and B will each agree that C passes a signpost at a definite point in space, but they will disagree on both how far away it is and at what time C reaches it.

The clock on C will be, like the signpost, objects agreed upon by A and B, and C's clock can be given by B as

t' = 4.36*sqrt(1-.9^2) = 1.9 sec.

So returning to A, given C's clock at a distance of 10 ls according to A, C's distance traveled in 10 sec on A's Clock will be given by

1.9 = 10(sqrt(1-s^2)) with s being the ls C travels in 10 sec on A's clock

.19 = sqrt(1-s^2)

.036 = 1-s^2

s^2 = 0.964

s = .98

So while A observes B to be moving at .9c and B observes C to be moving at .9c in the same direction, A observes C to be moving at .98c

You may think it absurd or counter-intuitive, but it is with Relativistic mathematics consistent with the physical world.

For a simple, graphic explanation of Special Relativity, see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335989541_Special_Relativity_graphically_explained

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman!

We agree with you that relativistic theory is a complex conceptual construction. And new interpretations of one or another of its conclusions are possible. For example, you write:

"...He provided absolute space for each by effectively assigning each world its own 'ether', whereby light propagates with speed С in each world..."

This is so, but a different conclusion can also be made: there are not many 'ethers', but one 'ether', which has zero speed relative to all reference frames. Why not? This is no more strange than the same speed C relative to all reference systems. Dear doctor Klingman! We are encouraged by the courage with which you discuss fundamental problems. Unfortunately, in modern science there is a lot of conformism and few breakthrough ideas.

We hope that our essay "New ontology: algorithmic laws and the passage of time" will cause your positive interest.

We have downloaded your publications from the site "vixra.org", and we will get to know them. We paid attention to the problems of the Quantum Spin. Please tell me, can it be argued that the energy of rotation is contained in the Quantum Spin of elementary particles, which can be converted into radiation energy? If so, we are getting a new direction for energy development. We are sure that this is how we have been reflecting on this problem for many years.

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

You are mistaken. I didn't give you a 1.

Edwin, this is really disturbing. Somebody, probably anonymous, must have snuck in and given you a 1 after I rated it. I don't think I should tell you exactly how I rated yours, but I believe it deserves to be up at the top of the list. You're undoubtedly high enough to make the cut that really counts, the final evaluation.

Edwin:

I agree with聽your basic approach.聽 The Universe is composed of one fundamental substance-charge.聽 Higgs charge.聽 This charge fills the Universe and is under tremendous pressure.聽 In聽response聽to the pressure the charge assumes a pattern of motion in sync with all surrounding charge.聽 This pattern of motion you may call a vortex.聽 Synonymous with the Higgs field this charge in motion has mass.聽 Dark Matter,聽 Mass that we do not normally notice as there is equal amounts in all directions; but it does compress a bit in response聽to concentrated energy (seen as displaced bits of charge=normal mater.)聽 Our material presence is composed of displaced bits of the vacuum, the either.

Hello E.E. Klingman,

The 2009 FQXi essay contest topic was "What's Ultimately Possible in Physics".

Your entry "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness".

In your abstract you state, "Because every physical theory assumes "something", that basic assumption will determine what is ultimately possible in that physics. The assumed "thing" itself will likely be unexplained. This essay will assume one thing......"

You then give a really good exploration of where you think that one thing assumed will lead and in the end prove out the second sentence of your abstract with these two concluding sentences of your essay:

"What is ultimately impossible in physics is to explain gravity and consciousness the essence of G and C (self-attraction, self-awareness, and the ability to act) will forever remain mysterious. This defines the ultimate possibility of physics.

You are correct, starting with "something" will always result in an unknown "something" resulting in the creation of more "somethings" to explain previous "somethings".

In this present 2020 contest your essay, "Deciding on the Nature of Time and Space" is very closely related to your 2009 one.

On page 9, you conclude, "In summary.......but no one has provided any explanation of how we are aware of 3D shapes in 3D space at arbitrary and mixed scales."

Both essays deal with no-things, gravity, consciousness, time, and space are all no-things, nothings, yet we know gravity and consciousness affect "things" and that effect we understand through our intuitive, "framework" of space and time, admitting space with or without things is no-thing and time with or without events is no-thing. Thus are Something and Nothing closely and intimately related as the ultimate opposites. But what is the relation between them?

The relation between them is what is created when you join them. MOTION.

Without motion there is no relationship at all between space and time in fact there can be no space and time because their existence is only realized in their unity in motion. And we KNOW MOTION EXISTS because we experience it as the unity of space and time according to the formula V=S/T.

Thus the unity of space and time in motion makes all 3 defined separately by their relationship to the other 2.

So that gravity is a motion in space, consciousness is a motion in time.

The space aspect of motion condenses by gravity into matter and the time aspect evolves condenses into consciousness the inward directing force within the matter itself. Because we only can focus on one aspect at a time one remains constant and the other variable.

In a universe where all is motion the 3 dimensions are created by the motion of our self-conscious awareness in this manner. A line is a motion, a movement in a direction not contained in the point. A surface is a movement in a direction not contained within the line and a solid is a movement of the surface in a direction not contained within itself to create the solid.

Consider the formula E=mc2. The only "thing" known in this equation is c and it has nothing to do with light, for c represents the speed of light, a motion and that is the common denominator between energy and mass and the reason each can be converted into the other for both are made up of motion. Mass is condensed motion and energy is that same motion expanded.

Comments appreciated,

Gerry Klein

Dear Edwin,

I found your essay to be interesting and beautifully written. And I thought your explanation of the problems with Special Relativity, and a possible way of solving these problems using a different ontology, was very clear.

However, as you might realise, I disagree with your view of time (also your views about number and consciousness). As you say: "the problem is in the ontology, i.e., the nature of physical reality." I see a universe of subjects. I take the view that time is created by the subjective perception of discontinuous change, i.e. the creation of time is only representable as an algorithmic step, where there is a stepwise change in time whenever there is a perception of (what we might represent as) a stepwise change in number for a variable. I can't see time as a pre-existing universal dimension or continuum, i.e. something representable as a smoothly changing variable in an equation.

Re consciousness: I think it is necessary to consider how one would derive the information content of consciousness, which clearly consists of higher-level information categories like "food" "danger" "tiger", "songbird" and "striped". And how one would derive that content from the lower-level information categories (like light frequency/ wavelength) arriving via interactions with the eyes and ears.

Regards,

Lorraine