Hi Peter,

Thanks for your kind words and for making the effort to analyze my essay. Yes, I follow your 'discrete' argument. It was your discrete model of plasmas that caused me to take you seriously years ago. But that doesn't apply here. The 'glass wall' is not to be taken seriously; it simply means I want full transparency for all frames. Instead of 'glass walls' on the 'boxcar', we can remove the walls entirely, and frame the argument in terms of a 'flatcar' with no walls. Einstein's inertial reference frame is a mathematical device that does not imply 'enclosed frame'. Ignoring wind pressure, the juggler can juggle on a flatcar as easily as in a boxcar. This removes the c/n argument of your fourth paragraph; it is not relevant to the problem.

As for your mention of 'ultimate' absolute system frame at the center of the universe, it suffers from the same problem as 'distant simultaneity' -- it is not measurable, hence not fact-based. That is why I use 'local absolute' in relativity arguments. I believe the 'local absolute' is always the local gravitational field through which light propagates, and which makes c+v measurable. The local gravity in the station [ignoring earth's rotation] establishes local rest [only perfect at the N and S poles] while the rail car and kiddie car do not generate their own gravity fields and thus are moving through the ether, hence see c+v, not c. This violates Einstein's 'constant c' hypothesis and invalidates his theory, as he said ether would do.

Susskind is very bright, but, like everyone else, fails to see things that haven't been seen for 115 years.

Like Smolin said: "to learn relativity is to experience a transition from one way of mentally organizing the world to another.". Once people change to relativity, they no longer apply commonsensical ideas of reality. That's where the problem lies.

Thanks again for putting effort into understanding my essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Eckard,

I certainly agree 'Tomorrow Never Dies' is open, but suspect you meant I declared another 'TND' wrong??

Peter

Eugene. I studied your essay (for a long time) and I basically agree with your conclusions. It appears to me that a theory that depicts a physical (ontological) result with a mathematical (creating and functioning) fundamental that correlates with the empirical physical measurements - from the smallest Planck action to the the visible universe - would solve many(all?) of the of the major problems of physics. The Successful Self Creation process/results introduced in my essay "Clarification of Physics..." appears to meet those criteria. In the theory I show how the processing created the variables/relationships of space, time, mass, speed, time that scale up to become the variables/relationships of the universe and its contents. It also creates the mathematics that can be used to explain them and their fit in the processing. In addition the process creates Quantum Mechanics, Planck action(s) and unifies QM, Planck Action and Relativity in one theory. Almost sounds too good to be true? I would appreciate your comments on my essay. John Crowell

    Edwin,

    I have taken to printing out essays that I read, making it easier to really digest them. I have always valued your opinion and am gratified with your comments re my effort. You never really know if you have hit the mark on each contest effort until community members really take the effort to read them closely. Thanks for your interest.

    Jim Hoover

      Dear Edward,

      First of all, it is good to meet again, I read already your comments before you participated in this contest, and I fully agreed and thank you for reading my essay.

      While reading your essay I made the following remarks:

      Special relativity is indeed not as simple as it seems, because it analyses an emergent phenomenon, as you say the "ontology" of space and time in this framework. The ontology of simultaneity in an emergent phenomenon becomes ALWAYS the relativity of simultaneity. I tried to escape this with the introduction of the Subjective Simultaneity Sphere (SSS), the stationary frame is then the conscious agent, that can be seen as the reference of reference.

      The velocity of light C, is for the conscious agent one of the borders of his reality, the maximum speed that the radius of his SSS can expand, so it doesn't mean that C is the ABSOLUTE velocity. You say: " Moving frames with arbitrary velocity is meaningless unless a universal velocity exists to which they can be compared.". Here you approach the same problem we all are struggling with "The Reference of Reference" You are right when you say: "moving reference frames are not accessible by us".

      I can only fully agree with you when you say "It views time as the intuitive common-sense notion that it is NOW everywhere in the universe, all at once, with one moment passing into the next moment; moments in time spanning the entire three-dimensional space." This is exactly what I mean to say that the real NOW is an unapproachable moment in Total Simultaneity.

      "Assignment of properties is essentially epistemology; the nature of the world is ontology. Assigning properties to the wrong ontology does not make sense" Bravo.

      When you say "Two different mathematic-based structures can co-exist for quite a while, but only one of the two ontologies actually exists." I should like to add that the co-existence of these two mathematical based structures is a coexistence in the PAST, they were thought of in the past, both ontologies were existing in the past and the future will bring a new ontology because "existing" is only the unapproachable NOW.

      Dear Edwin, I really liked your essay and I didn't understand the first 1 someone gave you, but I see you are getting already the value it deserves, and I added now my personal valuation.

      Best regards and good luck.

      Wilhelmus de Wilde

        Hello Mr Klingman,

        I enjoyed you relevant essay about this special relativity and the general frame if I can, say , I have shared it on Facebook,

        good luck and best regards

          Hello again, Edwin:

          I took some time to review you article "Everything's relative, or is it?" I see clearly now that we are absolutely on the same page ontologically. I have focused on quantum mechanical issues and was unaware of the issues regarding relativity that you raise. SR clearly allows different frames of reference (FORs) to synchronize their clocks if their relative motions are zero. If we assume a stationary FOR, we can therefore define a universal time frame throughout 3D space. 4D spacetime and 3D space time are distinct conceptual models with distinct mathematical descriptions, which you have detailed. I was interested to learn that within the 4D spacetime ontology, length contraction is implied, but it is not empirically observable! We have both argued that a valid empirical model can accommodate multiple conceptual models, but only one is right. We both agree that physical reality must be defined with respect to its actual physical framework, or more generally, to its context.

          I hope you take a closer look at my essay. If you overlook my lack of appreciation of different ontological interpretations of relativity, you will find a deeper framework that unites our contextual conceptual interpretations. By including a positive ambient temperature as part of the context, I eliminate quantum paradoxes, establish the 2nd Law of thermodynamics as a fundamental physical law, and allow an objective definition and arrow of functional complexity. A positive ambient temperature is empirically justified because absolute zero is an idealization that does not exist in reality, and the universe as a whole has an ambient temperature currently equal to its 2.7 K cosmic microwave background.

          Thank you for expanding my horizons. I hope I can return the favor.

          Harrison

            In response to comment on Fabian and Matthews thread I responded:

            Probably I would say that the complexity density of a given pattern will correspond to a certain 'degree' of consciousness. The most 'dense' or complex patterns exist in the brain where we find the highest degree of consciousness.

            You agree that a consciousness field is not unreasonable and ask whether this field is already described by our physical theories or whether one needs to add a new one. Charmers thought that we needed a new one and thought that physics 'left no room' for a new field.

            In 2006, when I was lead to the idea of a new field, I asked myself how this field could interact with matter. If I thought 'raise my arm' I wondered how the thought actually exerted any force on matter to start the bio-chemical-mechanical process. It took less than an hour to derive a formula for the force of a consciousness field on matter, based on a change in the local field, that was analogous to the electromagnetic force on charge. Similarly, the motion of mass induced a change in the local field, thus inciting awareness of the moving matter. We don't really want to be made aware of matter that isn't changing. Only active flows in our brain should incite awareness.

            It actually took a while for me to realize that the equation I had worked out by thinking the problem through in all it it's aspects was actually written down in 1885 by Oliver Heaviside based on his formulation of gravitational theory in analogy with Maxwell's electrodynamics. The more I analyzed the situation, the more every aspect fit together.

            In other words, I did not sit down one day and think, "maybe gravity is the consciousness field'. Instead I worked out the simplest equation that exhibited all the properties of consciousness that I thought consciousness must have and then found out that the equations described the gravito-magnetic field of Heaviside that also are the 'weak field' equations derived from Einstein's general relativistic field equations. In other words, I was dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that gravitomagnetism fills the bill perfectly.

            Also in 2006 Martin Tajmar measured this C-field in the lab and then 2011 Gravity Probe B detected this field. Eventually, after everything fit perfectly in place, I accepted this idea, and it has provided the most comprehensive understanding of consciousness that I have come across.

            Along the way I realized that physicists, always projecting structure on the world and thinking that this actually describes the world, had misunderstood the 'weak field' equations of relativity. To simplify the non-linear field equations they simply linearized the equations to describe the 'weak field'. Since the equations are no longer self-interactive, they believed the field is no longer self-interacting. This is foolishness. Changing the equations to simplify the calculations does not change the nature of the field. A self-interactive field remains self-interactive. It only means that one must iterate to restore self-interaction to the calculations. Also significant is that it is not mass in the equations but mass density. Physicists again foolishly think that the gravitational field is only significant for large masses. False -- it is density that drives the gravitomagnetic field circulation, hence electrons and atoms induce changes in the local field.

            The book I wrote describing this theory of consciousness is "Geneman's World", ISBN-13: 978-0-9791765-5-5, in 2008. My first FQXi essay in 2009 was on the Physics of Consciousness but only ten years ago it was not cool to talk about consciousness in physics. I am quite pleased to see that this topic is now 'respectable'. Believe me, it wasn't.

            Warmest regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Wilhelmus,

            Thanks for this response. I thought that we were in essential agreement on several points, but when different terminology is used one can't be sure. I'm pleased that we converge in many places as we appear to. After all, we're talking about pretty big questions that have been asked for a long time.

            I'm glad you liked my essay. Thanks again for studying it and commenting.

            Best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Hi Steve,

            I've seen your comments on other threads. You seem to be doing well. I thank you for reading my essay and for sharing it on Facebook.

            Take care of yourself my friend.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Harrison,

            I appreciate your investment in studying "Everything's Relative...". I thought we were basically in agreement on ontology, and am very happy that 'we're absolutely on the same page ontologically'. I think it is extremely important "a valid empirical model can accommodate multiple conceptual models, but only one is right."

            As Israel Perez points out in one of his comments, to many physicists disdain ontology as 'philosophy' and shun the question. It is, as I think you agree, the major question: what is real?

            I will look again at your essay. I taught thermodynamics 50 years ago, but never worked deeply in the field, so it will take me some time to feel comfortable again in this area. I certainly agree with you that a positive ambient temperature should be part of the context, but I have not followed all of your consequences that follow from this. It is an important point, and I will look again.

            You have put quite an effort into understanding my approach, and I thank you for this.

            Good health to you and good luck in the contest.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Thanks Jim. You really have written an exceptional essay this year, and I hope you do very well. I think it is the kind of essay that can win; beautifully written, very informative, and not overly controversial. I hope you win.

            I hope after you read my essay you will return and comment.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear John David Crowell,

            I certainly agree that many current problems of physics are based on false assumptions. It seems that a good approach is to try to identify these false assumptions and see what's left of science after they have been removed. My current essay deals with the false assumption of multiple time frames.

            I agree with certain aspects of your approach; it is finite, it is based on 'flexible' C* units that change while preserving their essence, and it is so structured as to be scalable. Also, as I think you agree, vortices are an essential concept.

            On the other hand, I do believe a big-bang-type creation event is reasonable, and I do not subscribe to a multiverse. In my mind the 'free lunch model' of a primordial field coming into creation implies that initially nothing else existed -- therefore any possible interaction must be self-interaction, as nothing else existed to interact with. This leads me to a self-interaction principle and equation that unfolds to evolve the universe in an essentially self-aware mode that gets us to where we are now. For example, to formulate it in physics form, if 'd' is a 'change operator' and f is the primordial field, then the basic equation is: df = f*f where * is the interaction operator. You'd be amazed how much falls out of this equation.

            One problem with FQXi, almost by definition is that most of the participants have their own models of reality, making it extremely difficult for everyone to agree. Therefore the best that can be expected is for us to converge to common principles and processes. Over the decade of contests this appears to me to be happening, as a number of us are coming to a neo-classical view that rejects the 'magic' of many current theories.

            I appreciate your reading my essay and agreeing with certain aspects of it. I wish you well in this contest and in the continued development of your theory of reality.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            You are welcome , Yes I am better , I had many problems in Belgium ,I was in a big depression due to many problems, I have lost all the important persons, they are dead like my mothers due to cancer, my godfather a suicide and my grandmother and all this the last 5 years, I am alone without nobody ,more others serious problems and a difficult past also, but I am better, I have immigrated since 7 moths here in Finland, I live with Ulla Mattfolk, she tells you hello.

            I have evolved also about my theory, I learn a lot of maths and improve it, at the begining here on FQXi my English was not well, it is a Little bit better even if it is not perfect in grammar , and my theory like I said Begins to be better at my humble opinion, I will publish several papers this year in logic, I am invited too at several international Conferences, I must say that I fear, I dislike to present in front of persons lol but I must assume. Thanks for your nice message, I repeat but your essay was very relevant to read, I wish you all the best and take care also , be the force with you Jedi of the Sphere :)

            Friendly

            Glad things are working better for you. You went through some rough times. Tell Ulla hello from me.

            Those of us with new theories or models begin because we see problems and think that our insight can be helpful. But theories are complex things and it takes a while to 'work the bugs out'. In many cases the improvement over the years is quite visible. This comes from continuing effort and from invaluable feedback from our peers. God bless you and I wish you the best. Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman:

            I'm glad you liked my essay. You say:

            "It's hard to argue that time 'exists' as a physical entity with one dimension, but it's an extremely useful concept."

            We agree that "the so-called time" was and is and will remain an extremely useful

            concept, and that it is hard to argue that it has a physical entity, simply because it cannot be

            proven that it has it.

            As for the experimental meaning of "so-called time" as "movement", it is not only

            important, but I think I have proven that it is a constant and uniform movement that man copied from the sun movement, for reasons of practicality in the design of the clocks. In no way is it a cyclic

            movement, and does not include the movement cycle count. On the contrary, the empirical meaning of

            "so-called time" is "continuous". The cyclic thing is a mistake that I think originates from the internal

            movements of the clock, in which there are many cyclic movements that are mechanisms like the

            pendulum that were designed in order to achieve the constant and uniform movement of the clock

            hands over the numbered dial.

            To measure something continuous it is essential to create units, in our case, the fundamental unit was given to us by nature. The Day, which is the constant and uniform movement of the sun from one sunrise to the next, which the Egyptians after a long process managed to divide into 24 hours ... In the measure of the "so-called time" at no time does it imply the count of the movement cycles. I repeat the movement is continuous, the hours are not parts of a cycle but the arbitrary divisions of a continuous movement, which can be divided because the "so called time" is a constant and uniform movement, no other movement could be divided in equal parts.

            We agreed that what is slowed down is not the "so-called time" but the clocks, the physical reason of such slows is the speed inertia and or gravity that slows the internal movements of the clock respect to the similar one on the earth surface.

            To the "so-called time" dilation I would call it slowing a clock or any other

            movement traveling at high speed and at a greater distance from the center of gravity, compared to the similar clock to the one on the earth surface.

            If we accept that the experimental meaning of "so-called time" is "movement" we are accepting that it is a physical property and exists as such, all physical existing things are in continuous motion in the universe.

            All the planets have different physical conditions, different gravity etc. so

            each place in the universe has its "called time". I think there is neither the "now" nor the "instant" I

            accept them as a reference to a very short period of the "so called time", this is continuous.

            You could read if you haven't already done it, my explanation of the paradox of the twins, I think it's the only physical possibility that this could be possible.

            I think I prove that Time is a measurement system

            I think I proved that Time is a measurement system, which was most likely unintentionally created by prehistoric man. This one exists only as long as man exists like all the systems he created. This system measures "so-called time" which is actually a constant and uniform movement. With units arbitrarily created by man as already I said.

            Thank you for Reading my essay,

            Héctor

              Thank you very much for your Words.

              I agree about the theories, they evolve and it is important to add and optimise our extrapolations, and also to study still and Always more the maths , physics and sciences to see a better generality. We search answers after all with humility inside this physicality like humble travellers from stars where our consciousness and knowledges evolve also. It is fascinating I must say, I cannot stop to search these answers, maybe the most important is to accept these limitations and accept only the proved things and make a difference with these assumptions mathematical, physical and philosophical that we cannot affirm in fact, it d be very odd and vanitious to affrim things not proved by experiments or mathematical proofs after all. This infinite eternal consciousness bless you also Professor Klingman, happy to know you , wish you also all the best for all, take care, friendly

              Hi Edwin,

              I wrote my essay to conform to the contest specifications. If you want to look at an actual article on my conceptual model, (which I hope you will) click here to download

              Best Regards,

              Harrison

              Dear Edwin,

              I have just finished reading your essay for the second time, and I must say I am impressed. I believe you are absolutely correct when you advocate focussing on ontology in order to make progress in physics. Be sure to read Israel Perez's essay as he makes some very similar points.

              As you may have noticed in Marts Liena's essay on the aether, where he quotes some work of mine on time, I also developed a time-energy theory seven years ago. It works best when there is a preferred frame - so in your essay example with the kiddie car in the railcar, my time-energy theory totally supports your observation re the stationary observer looking through glass walls.

              The support of ontology in developing physical theories is that we help dismantle paradoxes. The twin paradox is easily explained without resorting to using 'space-time' in the answer, as Einstein did.

              There are no time paradoxes in my theory, but it is best explained when an aether is considered as a preferred system of reference (borrowing that term from Perez). I liked your quote from Mermin "...the concept of time is nothing more than a convenient...device for summarizing compactly all relationships holding between different clocks."

              It is a concept I hold as well, as I believe in an infinitude of clocks, (a clock being any defined volume of space, each with its own individual tick depending on the embodied energy of that space).

              I am interested in the physicality of dimensions (as distinct from their mathematical being). I think I understand three dimensions of space, as that is the world I inhabit. However, I do not understand zero, one or two, or four or more dimensions of space from an ontological point of view. To my point of view there is only volume, down to the smallest of scales, and volume means 3 space dimensions. String theories propose multiple curled up space dimensions, (comes from the maths), but I have no idea what these can be, as in my humble view there are only 3 space dimensions, and anything curled up inside a volume must have some other property that defines it. I do not mind having other types of dimensions (time, temperature, pressure, energy, etc) as long as their meaning is made clear.

              I like your point "I am ever more convinced that many of our nasty problems in physics have very little to do with the issues on which this essay contest is based", which is also made by Perez.

              As my entry was my first ever FQXI essay, I tried to stick to examples of undecidability, computability and unpredictability, in my considerations of a TOE, although I do wander on to the philosophical time topic of presentism which I currently endorse.

              I am currently reading some of your previous FQXI essays and look forward to further discussions with you. Good luck in this one, your essay is most interesting.

              Lockie Cresswell

                Dear Edwin,

                I've been reading your essay and finding it of interest, have a few comments. I'll also rate it - btw, I'd appreciate it if you'd rate mine, as you said it was of interest, and it has only had one rating so far.

                You say that if time runs differently in different frames, being able to look inside the railcar at the small car would violate the principle of relative simultaneity. Firstly, one thing SR does not have a problem with is self-consistency. It's counterintuitive, like a lot of things (the Earth is spinning, but it doesn't seem to be). Whatever else it is or isn't, SR is self-consistent.

                And it's a description of the real world, including what we see, if you're prepared to calculate the light travel times.

                It's worth pointing out that all three things in the example - the station, the train, and the small car, have relative velocities. Any pair of them have a relative velocity. These three velocities don't add up in the expected way, but you could look through glass walls and see everything for that reason.

                The simultaneity aspect is even less related to what we see - the visible picture gives no direct clue as to when the event we see happened. Hence galaxies are seen as they were a long time ago. So what you see won't be affected by simultaneity issues.

                In answer to another point, I think the goal of physics is both a mathematical and conceptual description, and that the conceptual side is not axiomatic, but more like a visual picture. And it's very much part of science, and should not be relegated to philosophy. Some people tried to boot it out of science, because the conceptual side started doing very badly in the 20th century. But that wasn't its fault, we just weren't yet ready to interpret all the mathematics we had.

                Hope this makes sense, just my own opinion. Best regards,

                Jonathan