TO Eckard

Who somewhere up there said I (and some others) was one of those who questioned the use of / correctness of / interpretation of / modern mathematics and its use in physics.

I DO NOT ! ! Eckard misunderstands my essay. I endorse and applaud the use of advanced maths. We need more of it, not less. I accept that in principle it is all correct.

My point is not that it is no good; it is very good - but not good enough. To get even more advanced maths we need to extend the foundations of maths to enable its scope to be extended. Extending foundations will of course mean we have to demolish part of the superstructure that has worked very well in the past, and REBUILD it with a better version.

I will post this on Eckard's site also.

Steven

You wrote above

"My most prominent suggestion is that only motion is real and that time and space are two separate and indistinguishable emergent aspects of that."

I presume English is not your first language, but this is gobbledegook (verbal or textual rubbish. What are "aspects" if they are not "Real" ? How can things be "separate" but "indistinguishable" ?

By the way, everyone I have ever had contact with (even Theoretical Physicists who argue that Time, Space etc. are not Real or are indistinguishable), has NO PROBLEM DISTINGUISHING Time & Space in daily life. Do you have such a problem ?

One of the strengths of the mathematics that you disparage is that it enables us to articulate clearly the concepts your words only make a mess of.

I sugest you read and understand the essays by (1) Ian Durham, and (2) Philip vos Fellman et al.

  • [deleted]

(switching editor mode)

  • [deleted]

(I'm sorry but the editor just does not allow me to post more than 20 lines for some reason).

Dear Terry,

I'm sorry if I touched on one of your beliefs. I think the advanced math is currently killing progress in physics. Mostly it is not more than smoke and mirrors around something that has basically little physical content. My argument is that not more of it is needed, but a return to the very basics as it is at that level that most errors were made that still block the progress of physics. Basic mistakes were made a.o. in calculus, the math describing circular motion and relativity. The advanced math only perpetuates and hides these mistakes.

(cont'd)

  • [deleted]

(for Terry, cont'd)

You remark:

"My most prominent suggestion is that only motion is real and that time and space are two separate and indistinguishable emergent aspects of that.

I presume English is not your first language, but this is gobbledegook (verbal or textual rubbish. What are "aspects" if they are not "Real" ? How can things be "separate" but "indistinguishable" ?

By the way, everyone I have ever had contact with (even Theoretical Physicists who argue that Time, Space etc. are not Real or are indistinguishable), has NO PROBLEM DISTINGUISHING Time & Space in daily life. Do you have such a problem ?"

I'm not sure if I have to take that as an ad hom or that you really don't understand the concept. Let me explain it in more basic terms then: the rulers of space and time are photons. Not only conceptually, but also practically since the SI system defines the unit of length to be the speed of light in vacuum and the unit of time to be the frequency of a specific photon. That simply means all our physical measurements are related to the motion of the photons. If you prefer it more abstract then I would suggest reading Xavier Borg website, as referenced in my essay. He uses dimensional analysis to show that all physical constants can be derived from ratio's of space and time.

  • [deleted]

(for Terry, cont'd-2)

You also remark:

"One of the strengths of the mathematics that you disparage is that it enables us to articulate clearly the concepts your words only make a mess of."

I would say: math is just another language. To quote from the essay, one line describing "weak interactions" states: "Hermetry form-type 4(R^3 x T^1 x S^2 x I^2): W,W-". Does this articulate a clear concept? I would at best call it insider lingo, but the gobbledygook word seems to be more appropriate.

Good luck with the contest!

Steven Oostdijk

  • [deleted]

Steven I agree 100 % with you.

Waking up observer is the only way to see what is of the mind and what is of physical reality.

My research shows space-time is math model only, still today 99,999 physicist believe space-time exists as a physical reality.

In 1905 math has overruled physics.

You can read more about my research here in my essay and on

viXra - quantum gravity and mind-science

yours amrit

  • [deleted]

Hi dear Steven Oostdijk,

Very interesting your ideas .Happy to see this kind of pragmatism about the reality of the physicality where the mass is a main piece .

I have an idea for you ,the rotating spheres .For the spin ,I think it's just a question of sense in fact ,..........mass ,rotations ,spheres ,energy ,fields ,forces ...all is linked with these rotating spheres .

The mass,it is these rotations ,

I consider my gauge like that ,

Future universal finite sphere doesn't turn ,

the mass ,gravity ...gravity centers turns in the max first sense(main central sphere,like our center of our universe in fact) ,the light in the other ,that coordonates the universal sphere furthermore .

Inside the mass with a deceleration thus of the ultim velocity of rotations of the gauge ,thus light and gravity ,thus mass and energy .There the number and the specificities of quantum entangled spheres is very important for the combinations in the line time.

The rest is a synchronizations of all these rotating spheres with the evolution point of vue .The light becomes mass in Time .The sense.....always .

Congratulations and good luck for the contest

Best Regards

Steve

    5 days later
    • [deleted]

    Dear Steven Oostdijk,

    When I asked for further names of those who do not always equate mathematical solutions with physical reality, nobody responded. On the contrary, Terry Padden felt misunderstood. Nonetheless I found in particular Peter Lynds and to some extent J. Smith.

    Nobody is perfect. You wrote: "Einstein chose to express his General Theory of Relativity ... By this choice Einstein empowered Hilbert, Klein, Weyl, Minkowski, and many others." We should be more careful. Minkowski died before Einstein published even his special theory of relativity.

    While I tend to cautiously agree with some criticism by Mathis, I would never even mention Dunne.

    Regards,

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    Steven

    An excellent essay and argument. Math has become very much the limiting factor. I've just read another very supportive in a different way, look at Peter Jackson's 'perfect symmetry', but that's only a doorway and you have to look deep!

    He like you deserves a much higher score.

    Best of luck

    Chris

    Dear Steven,

    Interesting essay. Physics needs plain explanations and returning to basics. If abstract math is used, it must relate to reality and not camouflage the physics. It's funny that you refer to a Heim theory paper to demonstrate that math has taken the place of physics in peer-reviewed papers, while Heim theory is almost absent from peer-reviewed papers.

    At the conclusion of the essay, I was a bit left on my hunger. Miles Mathis or Larsson may have shown a lot of interesting things, but what have they shown that others haven't shown and that really gets to the point? Is it OK if I quote you on twitter or on my blog?

    Best regards,

    Arjen

    • [deleted]

    Dear Arjen,

    Thanks for the reaction. Indeed "back to basics" is the core of the message and I agree with you that the paper could be a little longer. The problem for me was that going only slightly deeper into Mathis or Larson's theories will create so many questions that many people would have been alienated. Both Miles and Larson show that something is wrong with the very basics and that is a discussion you cannot resolve by adding a few pages to the paper. I just hope to trigger people to also take notice of these authors.

    It's fine with me if you want to use some material on your blog or twitter.

    Regards,

    Steven

    11 days later
    • [deleted]

    A well thought out and presented paper on the possibilities of reordering the universe from the qauntum scale. I enjoyed the reasoning and the refreshingly simple approach to the work of Newton. The unification of EM and gravity via the photon field is a novel but simple unification.

    Good Work all around

    Thanks

    Dean Ward

    2 months later
    • [deleted]

    I enjoyed the paper, especially the first couple of pages and the overall theme. But after spending a good 90 minutes at Miles Mathis's site, I am disappointed. He is a conspiracy theorist whose articles are built on straw-man and ad hominem attacks on everyone from Einstein to Columbia professors. I am all for alternative thinking (which is why I'm here), but his ideas cannot be taken seriously.

    Seriously, if we treat gravity as an expansion of matter: Consider a bowling ball and volleyball, equal-sized, in space. Eventually they meet due to gravity, and not at the original midpoint, due to the bowling ball having higher mass, correct? Now, how does that happen? Is one ball larger in the end than the other?

    Regarding his idea that waves are due to particles mechanically spinning and tumbling end over end: What object is able to spin about an axis that is outside of itself?

    • [deleted]

    Continuing: In his article "A New Definition of Gravity Part 7," Mathis modifies the "expansion" theory of gravity to say that it is structural rigidity (!) that causes a lead box to be heavier than a cardboard box. He does this to answer the question of why heavy things don't expand faster than light things. Mathis has the audacity to write, "If I were more rigid, I would weigh more." And yet, shockingly, he has not done an experiment to show that a mouse gains weight when it is frozen solid, or that a rigid ice cube weighs less after it melts. Or any other experiment that would blow the lid off modern physics, for that matter.

    I always thought science was about experimentation and verification/falsification, not writing 1,400 pages of tortured theory on a personal website.

    Steven, how can you cite Miles Mathis on general relativity in all seriousness, when his "reformulation" is founded on the most absurd, falsifiable premises?

    • [deleted]

    Dear Carl,

    I applaud you for being able to understand all 1500 pages of Miles' website in 90 minutes. It took me at least a few days to only read them.

    I could point you to the pages were the questions you pose are explained, but Miles actually already answered your questions in a new article that can be found here: Eleven Big Questions

    You Should Have For The Standard Model

    Thanks for your support for the paper.

    Steven

    • [deleted]

    Yes -- the article in which he calls my questions "pathetic" and "shallow," justifies why no experiments are being done to test his ideas, and says that mainstream science "sicks" people like me on him.

    After all, if only the mainstream never challenged independent theorists like Mathis (a painter with no university-level education in science), then their ideas could become fully accepted and taught to students everywhere, for the betterment of all. Okay then! A fine understanding of the scientific method indeed.

    • [deleted]

    Hi Karl,

    Well, you could hardly expect to get a better treatment than you give him and his theories. On Mathis' website you can find many positive evidences of his theories like the equal optical size of the sun and moon, the tilt of the planets, the size of the magnetopause etc. Phenomena that are now put in the category "coincidence" by mainstream theories.

    I am confident that even though mainstream chooses to ignore him as a little pest, history will assign Mathis the place that he deserves.

    • [deleted]

    Steven, please do let us know when Mr. Mathis has an experiment that predicts an outcome that would be unexplainable by current physics. I'm not talking about new explanations for well-known anomalies; anyone can do that. I mean an experiment that hasn't been done, where current physics clearly predicts one outcome and Mathis Physics predicts another. That would be the scientific way to advance his theories. Maybe you can help him out. Does he want to be vindicated, or does he want to keep yelling at the wall? Talk is cheap, because no matter what a person has written, they can always say to critics, "You just don't understand well enough" (as you have to me, twice). This is not how science moves forward.

    Miles Mathis should perform, or at least suggest, an unambiguous and performable experiment that would falsify JUST ONE aspect of mainstream science, by way of prediction, or else he has no right to complain about being ignored.

    • [deleted]

    Dear Karl,

    It is your choice to ignore his results by prejudicing him to be a crank and not reading Miles' website in some more detail. He has tens of examples where current mainstream physics does not get an answer at all, or gives an incorrect or ad hoc answer while this theories provides that answer with the correct numbers. A simple overview of his claims can be found here:

    The Central Discoveries of this Book

    ( Scroll to the bottom of that page if you just want a simple list )

    For your convenience I'll give some examples where you can check his numbers.

    An example is for instance the Saturn precession anomaly that does not match the numbers predicted by GR but exactly matches the numbers as predicted by Miles' gravitational theory. This is a recent measurement done by the Cassini spacecraft. This article can be found here:

    The Saturn Anomaly

    Another example of a fine experiment is where Miles explains why the proton hits a mass limit of 108 in accelerators. Through expansion theory one can show that this confirms an age of the proton of about 15 Billion years, in line with current estimates for the age of the visible universe. That can be found a.o. here:

    New mass and energy transforms in Special Relativity

    ( Scroll down to part eight )

    If that does'nt convince you (I assume it won't) finally an article that explains the exact orbital distance of Mercury through Miles' unified Gravity+E/M theory:

    A Mathematical Explanation for the Orbital Distance of Mercury