Dear Vesselin,

I am not sure what the 'recent' controversy is, but there have been objections by some to the idea of relativistic mass for a while now.

My view is that inertial mass m = gamma m0 is the most accurate relation in relativity. It is a kinetic energy aspect of mass that has real consequences, whereas the mixing of time and space by gamma is unphysical.

I've read your essay several times. It seems to put great weight on Minkowski's 1908 interpretation of the MM experiments. My own interpretation, like that of Hertz, upon whose theory Einstein based his 1905 paper, is that light propagates in local gravity, which has effectively zero 'ether velocity' in the MM lab. Nor do I believe length contraction of space occurs. Time dilation can readily be explained in (3+1)D ontology, based on relativistic mass. The only length contraction that appears in measurements is the Doppler-based 'apparent length contraction', and possibly some material-based contraction under acceleration.

Considering your employment, which I assume is based on full agreement with Minkowski, I decided there was little to be gained by arguing any of these points. Over the last two years I have found out in no uncertain terms that believers in special relativity can apply it to any problem, although I believe that they mix ontology when the apply it in acceleration and rotation situations. Thus I did not rate your essay, as that seemed inappropriate.

What is your belief about relativistic mass? I looked again and did not find it in your essay.

My best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

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?

    Dear Vesselin,

    On your page the suggested reply states: "one of the elements of the research strategy of the Minkowski Institute (Montreal) is to provide justification for excluding research directions. I am well-aware that some people will be outraged by such undemocratic intervention."

    There is already "exclusion of research directions"; such is inherent in entrenched establishments. The members of such establishments are human, hence essentially tribal, and "our tribe is always right."

    I quote McEachern in my essay:

    "...Planck observed a century ago, the problem is, theoretical physicists are not part-icularly adept at identifying that some things even are assumptions; with the result that 'self-evidently true' facts lead to long periods of stagnation, until these "facts" are eventually shown to be just idealistic false assumptions."

    Einstein built his false assumptions into his definition of 'inertial reference frame' and then based every relativity problem in terms of multiple inertial frames, automatically guaranteeing that multiple time frames are (falsely) assumed. Minkowski built his false assumptions into his 4D ontology.

    Special relativity is not the only area of physics that has false assumptions in its fundamentals, but all such areas have books, papers, lectures, professorships, and other investments that oppose any serious focus on such fundamental false assumptions. 'Political correctness' has nothing to do with it. It's the nature of the hierarchical establishment, period.

    The lack of real progress in 40 years is near proof of this state of physics, and many in these contests believe the dam may be starting to break, but that's probably optimistic.

    Best wishes,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Vladimir,

    I reread your essay and once again agree that

    "It is assumed in the work that the device of the Universe is based on a single essence - a toroidal gravitational pilot wave. De Broglie pilot waves are vortices of deterministic turbulence in the material, dynamic and fractal medium of a physical vacuum."

    In single "free particle" instances, the particle is deterministic, while multiple such particles interacting non-linearly are effectively non-deterministic, and subject to quantum statistics.

    I encourage you to continue working based on your above assumptions.

    My best regards

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    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

      James you have not understood the issue, but apparently that has not kept you from knocking my score down with a 1 score.

      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.

        Dear Pavel and Dmitry,

        Thank you for your interesting comment and analysis. I agree that there are not many ethers but one ether, and hypothesize that it is the universal gravitational field that light propagates in. Unlike the ether expected by Michelson-Morley, it is not universally homogeneous, but locally defines a preferred frame, in conflict with Einstein's 'spacetime symmetry'. Einstein said that the existence of an ether would destroy relativity, yet post-1918 he accepted an ether as necessary for light to propagate in! Obviously the 'local ether' travelled with the MM lab so they detected "zero ether wind", to within their instrumental resolution. Because they were expecting a homogeneous universal ether their null result was interpreted to mean "no ether". Just a little bit more imagination would have changed the entire century of physics in a positive way!

        I noted in comments on your thread that Peter Jackson replicated Hafele-Keating and asked for a rationale, as to why "why east and west acceleration have the opposite effect on oscillation rates?"

        In my viXra:1812.0424 paper, "Everything's Relative, or is it?" on pages 45-52 I explain the HK and the Michelson-Gale experiments which are essentially unexplainable by relativity. The various Wikipedia-type explanations are based on "ontology-switching", which I believe is not legitimate, but is compatible with the fact that relativists ignore ontology and choose whichever is needed in a given situation, as if physical reality is "problem specific"!

        In your essay your AREAL set is an interesting model of time, compatible with the (3+1)D-ontology of 'presentism', in which past and future events are unreal. This is somewhat analogous to the Peano axioms, in which only the latest integer exists, identified with the 'moment', NOW. This algorithmic 'counting' of cycles is the basis of all measurements of time. As you say, "the functionality of a mechanical clock is one of the simplest algorithmically arranged processes."

        This of course differs from the 'experience of time', which is not measurement-based, as you seem to imply with your discussion of St Augustine.

        I believe that all axiomatized theories are algorithmic, and your analogy with Feynman's chess board appears appropriate.

        Thank you again for reading my essay, analyzing, and commenting.

        My best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        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.

        James, I apologize for suggesting that you attacked me. I've been hit recently by a number of low scores after residing in the top ten for quite a while. I know that timing is tricky. In the past I've even delayed posting comments because some one hit an essay with a '1' just as I was ready to post, and I didn't want to have my comment tied to the bad score through unfortunate timing. I was wrong to attack you. Don't worry about it.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        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.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #156

        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 Gerry,

          I'm impressed that you reviewed my first (2009) essay. Just FYI, you might find my 2016-17 essay on the Nature of Mind interesting as well.

          We agree that space and time are 'not things'; they are abstractions. Einstein said "there is no space absent a field" and I believe that's true. If one could actually take away the field, then 'no thing' would be left. But apparently unlike you I believe that the field is a thing. It occupies volume and possesses energy density and can perform work. It is a physical thing and it is real. It can be tested at any time by jumping off a roof.

          Motion on the other hand is a ratio of two 'no things', space and time. I conceive of the speed of light, c, as a disturbance (a stress) propagating through a physical field, as did Hertz, and I identify the field as gravity. As I sit here replying to you I am not in motion relative to the earth, but I do feel the force of the field.

          Your essay references "the immaterial world non-material no-thing world of consciousness." My theory assumes that the primordial field has consciousness, which you define as the ability to receive and respond to stimuli. The field senses moving mass density and exerts force on moving mass density, and this requires enough energy that we must eat ~3 times per day.

          You mentioned the Michelson-Morley null result, which I interpret as meaning that the laboratory (to first order) was not moving through the local gravity field, hence no 'moving ether wind'. If a little bit more imagination had been applied in 1887 we would have been spared a century of mistaken non-intuitive concepts and the corresponding "everything's relative" nonsense leading, ultimately, to the general acceptance of "my truth" and "your truth" with which we are cursed today.

          My best wishes,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          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

            Hi Lorraine,

            Thank you for your kind remarks.

            As I recall you live in Australia, and if I were to phone you we would probably both agree that it is "now" where each of us are, independent of position in the universe. I believe that the concept of 'absolute time' as 'universal simultaneity' is simply more useful than thinking that "time is created by the subjective perception of discontinuous change." Certainly 'awareness' of time is engendered by such, but the way things hang together throughout the physical universe goes deeper than subjective perception, I believe. I am not a solipsist in any way.

            I'm not sure I would describe time as "a pre-existing universal dimension" but mathematically, it is convenient to treat it as such. The question for physicists is whether the dimension varies with position, as the 4D ontology claims, or whether time and space are essentially unconnected, as (3+1)D-ontology supposes.

            As for "information content", while that is certainly a useful concept, I tend to avoid it today because too many people believe that "information is physical". The reality, in my opinion, is that "energy state transitions in a specific context" describes what actually happens without making any physical assumptions about "info as real".

            The question of algorithmic vs non-algorithmic consciousness is more complex. Clearly the fact that neural networks support logic points to algorithmic. But perception of shapes, for example, is, in my model, essentially non-algorithmic. I don't believe I "compute" the difference between a ball and a cube using logic. I really believe it operates as I described in my essay.

            Based on your many essays and comments over the years, I think we generally see the world in much the same light, but of course our preferred descriptions will never be identical; it's just too complex.

            Thanks again for reading my essay and thinking about it. I always enjoy hearing you viewpoint.

            Warmest regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Dr. Klingman,

            You have well laid out how Einstein showed that reality is not just a simple given. The nature and structure of space and time even which is which is relative to states of motion (and in GR, acceleration too.) It seems a rather tight pivot to the next subject, of your concept of the Consciousness Field, but I understand the space (;-)) constraints here, and it being further explained in the references. If you can link that concept with the feature-building power of Wolfram's constructs, that would be a neat feat.

            BTW if any readers might take at look at my own piece, addressing the issue of the strong correlations of entanglement and how neo-mechanistic models of quantum physics aren't enough - it could use more votes on this last day. Thank you.