Is Reality Analog or Digital by Basudeba Mishra

Dear Basudeba,

I enjoyed your essay and found a few statements of particular interest to me:

"...there are many interpretations of QM [and] no unanimity regarding what constitutes reality. [...] Quantum Field Theory can't be imagined without particles which are accelerated and scattered in colliders..."

I believe these observations are valid. Quantum Field Theory arose through the experimental problem of studying infinitesimal ['point'] particles from relatively infinite distances. Almost the only mathematical tool suited to this is symmetry groups. Therefore, after a century of such goings-on, we arrive at a known set of particles and a conceptual framework heavily biased toward symmetry and symmetry groups.

But it's possible that symmetry and group concepts were most appropriate for analysis of the measurement process and yet not necesssarily most appropriate for understanding physics, now that we know most [or all?] of the particles in existence.

I also agree with most of your points [made elsewhere] regarding strings.

I invite you to read my essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your post. As we have mentioned, we are an amateur and not a professional scientist. Hence getting an appreciative letter from you is highly embarrassing for us. But we also said that we are interested in what can be derived from fundamental principles. We find the mathematics of Physicists as unmathematical, as they are not logically consistent. We had published a book on Number Theory based on fundamental principles, where we had discussed it elaborately. We differ from the modern concept of symmetry and symmetry groups. Without this exotic mathematical manipulation, we have derived the following testable theories from fundamental principles:

1. The accepted value of the electric charge of quarks contains an error element of 3%. In stead of +⅔ and -⅓, it should be +7/11 and -4/11. Thus, taking the measured charge of electrons as the unit, the value of the electric charge of protons is +10/11 and that of neutrons -1/11. The residual negative charge is not apparent as negative charge always confines positive charge and flows towards the concentration of positive charge - nucleus. Hence it is not felt outside. It is not revealed in measurement due to the nature of calibration of the measuring instruments. This excess negative charge confines the positive charge (nearly 2000 times in magnitude) which is revealed in atomic explosions. Charge neutral only means the number of protons and electrons are equal.

2. The value of the gravitational constant G is not the same for all systems. Just like the value for acceleration due to gravity g varies from position to position, the value of G also varies between systems. Gravity is not a single force, but a composite force of seven. These seven, which act together, are different for macro and micro systems.

3. The value of the fine-structure constant α that determines the electromagnetic field strength as calculated by us theoretically from our atomic orbital theory is 7/960 (1/137) when correlated to the strong interaction (so-called zero energy level) and 7/900 (1/128) when correlated to the weak interaction (80 GeV level). There are 5 more values that determine the structure of the orbitals in the atomic spectra. Hence the physically available values of the s orbitals (principal quantum number) are restricted to n = 7, though theoretically, it can have any positive integer value.

4. There is nothing like Lorentz variant inertial mass. It has never been proved.

5. There are only two types of field that we have hinted in our essay.

Regards,

basudeba.

Hello dear Sir,

I like the Indian philosophies and religions,in fact I read a little of all at the age of 15 or 16,

I know what in the books,Ten x ,he recomes because I suppose the hour is serious, very serious, because the earth must be rethought in its pure universality.

The vaidics numbers...........and the infinity, the o and the - are harmonized in its pure physicality and its aim!!!I have always thought, they do not really exist in fact.It's logic, 0 multiplicate by the 1 if we take this number for the universal sphere....has no sense because it's the 1 who rests simply.

This aim is purelly harmonious and about love, we understand thus why it's time to act universally speaking.

Best Regards from Belgium.

We are youngs at the universal scale, indeed we evolve and some stupidities are dedicated to disappear in time space spherization.

the borders, the arms and weapons, the monney, the differences, the vanity, ....all that is totally different than compassion and wisdom.

Can we sleep quietly if only one child still cries.....the humanity is like a raibow, a diversity of colors unified in the light....it's difficult to trun off a big fire with one water drop, nevertheless a whole of drops makes ocean.

We are catalyzers of this universal truth of evolution, the spherization for me.This Earth, this sphere turning cries above the galaxies....the errors and sufferings must disappear simply.

Regards

Steve

Dear Sir,

You are welcome.

Thank you very much for the book,with pleasure.

I will sent you it.

I liked these words, it's relevant at my humble opinion.

you say "The linear interaction is addition or subtraction. The non-linear interaction is multiplication or reduction"

Regards

Steve

Dear Basudeba,

You wrote [elswhere] "Hence no mathematics is possible using infinity and renormalization is mathematically void."

Because English is not my native language, I have to admit difficulties to understand this and other sentences of you. Edwin Klingman's comment on symmetries makes me curious. Maybe, you will be in position to provide details that either rebut or confirm in some sense my admittedly unwelcome views .

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Sir,

We have a wrong notion about time traveling backwards. We have discussed this aspect in our essay. You are welcome to comment on it.

Basudeba,

I'm not sure which point about time you are referring to? Was it that there is no negative time, or the commentary in the notes about spacetime as a geometric construct, while the actual effects rely on specific physical forces?

As a point of record, I'm not saying time travels backwards, in the sense that physical processes reverse themselves. I am just pointing out that the past to future arrow of time is against a non extant context, ie. the entire series of events, so that the real constant is the present, not the events. Against this physical constant, it is the events going from future potential to past circumstance. Much of the confusion and complexity of modern physics seems to involve ways of incorporating the past to future arrow of time as more fundamental than it is.

Dear Sir,

We are extremely thankful to you for raising a very important question, which is truly a Foundational Question. We will try to explain to the best of our abilities. Please bear with us if it is lengthy.

You have correctly pointed out that the past to future arrow of time is against a non extant context, i.e. the entire series of events, so that the real constant is the present, not the events. You are also right that much of the confusion and complexity of modern physics seems to involve ways of incorporating the past to future arrow of time as more fundamental than it is. The reason for this problem is related to the measurement problem and the role of observer in quantum physics. We have discussed many issues relating to this in our post under the essay of Mr. Israel Omar Perez and others. Here is some additional information.

It is generally accepted that reality has no meaning until it is perceived as such. Perception is nothing but the result of measurement, which in turn is the comparison between similars. Comparison is a process that can only be performed by conscious agents, the reasons for which has been discussed by us elsewhere in these posts. It requires energy to start any process, as also the resultant transformation of matter, to make it perceptible. Matter has position, i.e., it requires a frame of reference to describe it. Transformations take place in discrete processes due to application of energy.

We hold that field is the essence and matter is confined field. Anything confined has an internal structure (including the quarks). This gives rise to spin, which is the effect of internal dynamics of the particle, just like angular momentum, which is the effect of external dynamics of the particle. The cause for both is elasticity, which we hold as the inertia of restoration. When a force is applied from one direction, inertia of restoration is generated, which generates another force of equal magnitude in the opposite direction. As long as the external force does not overcome the internal confining strength of the particle, it is termed as elasticity for macro systems and entanglement for micro systems. Like the elasticity breaks down after some level, entanglement also breaks down after certain level. The effect of this is experienced as stress and strain.

We hold that gravity is not a single force, but a composite force that stabilizes. We have discussed about this elaborately elsewhere in these posts. The seemingly attraction between bodies is the result of density variation between local points of the fields containing them. For example, a projectile falls to Earth not because gravity pulls it down, but the density of air is less than that of the Earth and the projectile. Since strong force is the strongest among all fundamental forces, the solids (which are the macro manifestations of confined particles) retain their structure while interacting with other less dense mediums. This is the reason why some objects float on water. There is a similar, but much more elaborate for stabilizing the orbits of planets and the atomic orbitals. This requires a detailed description of charge. Hence we are leaving it out for the time being. We do not accept Coulomb's law, but give a different explanation for it from which we derive the four fundamental forces of Nature.

With this preliminary explanation, we return to the point raised by you. From the above description, you might have seen that everything in the Universe is ever moving. In other words, continuous transformation is a property of Nature, while permitting local loops that are temporarily stabilized. These local loops evolve differently in different groups. Since time is the measurement of the sequence of change over a discrete segment by a similar, repetitive and easily intelligible unit by comparing it with the other segment, comparison between time evolutions between two groups leads to time dilation.

You are absolutely correct that the real constant is the present, not the events. This is because; we measure an evolutionary segment only at "here-now". But we store this information for subsequent referral. This is the reason why we remember the past and not the future, because there is nothing to refer.

What we mean by past is the reference to our measurement, which no longer exists, but the result of which is frozen in our reference system. Since there is no information in our reference system regarding the measurements that have not taken place, there is nothing as the future. We refer present as future with reference to the past. It is just like the picture taken of an event. The picture invokes the memory of the event, but we cannot participate in that event. If some event has not taken place, we cannot take its picture. Hence, we neither can refer to it nor participate in it. Since the picture has no "direction" (the placement of the printed paper may have a direction), there cannot be a direction of the past. Since future does not exist with reference to present, there cannot be a direction for future. Without any frame of reference, present cannot have a direction. Thus, time does not have a direction in the physical sense. We can change the order of physical placement of objects to change their direction, but we cannot do so with past and future. Yet, since it is related to sequence, it has a direction. The direction follows a fixed sequence: conditions suitable for its generation, being, transformation due to interaction with its environment or becoming, growth, transmutation, destruction of the specific characteristic that distinguishes it from others. Since this pattern is universal, time is not only unidirectional, but linearly unidirectional.

Hope this satisfies your question. You are welcome for further clarification, if need be.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Basubeda,

You write:

---"Whether observation by the Schrödinger's cat can collapse the wave function"---

If objects, if particles only exist to each other as far and for as long as they manage to communicate their existence physically, then Schrödinger's experiment should make sure that the cage completely isolates the cat from the world outside of it, from whatever fields and forces. However, if there can be no physical interaction between the cat in the cage and the observer outside of it, then man and cat don't exist to each other, so it doesn't even make sense to ask about the animal's health. If we could completely isolate it, we would annihilate the cat. In particle-language: just because macroscopic objects, their physical properties, seem to be impervious from whatever happens to them, that doesn't mean that we can regard fundamental particles likewise as classical objects. Quantum particles only exist in the performance of their duties, so they would stop to exist if we isolate them from interactions. As the observer or observing particle and the observed object continuously exchange energy, even if they don't move, then any action of one affects the state of the other, though in macroscopic observers and subjects these effects usually are unobservable, partly because the observation of these effects again interferes with the observed.

---"Quarks move within the confinement of neutrons and protons."---

In my thread, in UPDATE 1, about the strong force, I argue why quarks are not the building stones of neutrons and protons we presume them to be.

---"The universe is a closed system that spins."---

To be able to spin as a whole requires the existence of something outside the universe, something with respect to which it spins, something which physically would be affected if its spin were different.

---"Each body acts as one indivisible system. This is a universal phenomenon that creates the uncertainty because the internal dynamics of the field that creates perturbation are not known to us."---

Because we assume that particles exist even if they wouldn't interact at all, we ascribe them metaphysical properties, that is, properties which are incomprehensible in principle. Though we don't know very much about nature, if systems only exist to each other as far as they communicate their properties, that is, exchange physical information which affects both systems, then, though any system has some autonomy, there's no sharp border between where a system ends and its environment begins. In other words, there is no completely independent information inside any system it can hide from being expressed in its own behavior as well as in that of its neighbors. The uncertainty resides in the impossibility to draw a border between the system as the source of whatever its presence does to the environment and the system as the product of influences from that environment, from neigboring systems.

---"All bodies are created from the same fundamental particles."---

I am missing the part how these fundamental particles have been created as such a creation mechanism may offer some insight as to why of the properties of those bodies. I hope to have made clear in the update, why in nature the building affects the properties of its bricks in the building process. (P.S.: I've answered your last post in my thread, and I'd like to know if you understand my answer.)

Regards, Anton

Basubeda

I agree with many of your concepts, but much has so far passed me by. You may be interested in this very short simple video representing transition between inertial frames form one observer frame. http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.htm

With careful consideration you should find it actually addresses almost all concepts of Special Relativity and more.

Peter

Dear Sir,

It seems we are describing the same theory in different languages. The nuances of the language make the meaning slightly dissimilar. If we follow your language, what you say is correct. Now, kindly follow it in our language. What is perception or cognition? It is a conscious function no doubt, but since it is expressed as the result of measurement, which is a purely a mechanical process of comparison between similars, cognition can be revealed through mechanical processes only. As long as the measurement has not been done, we cannot get the result. Hence we cannot "know". We have explained that we can really measure, hence "know", only in the present. But as we have shown in our essay, cognition or consciousness has infinite dimensions making it time invariant. Thus, we use the result of the measurement at "here-now" at later times, when the object has evolved temporally and is no longer the same as the result of measurement. Since these are ever changing states and we have no way of knowing its true state, we combine all such unknowable states together and call it as the superposition of states or that the object is in superposition of all possible states.

From this description you can see that:

1) We agree (we have admitted in our essay) that unless an objected is perceived as such, it is not real. However, this perception need not be individual centric. Even if we have not perceived something, but if it has been perceived by someone else, it will be real for him, though it may be unknown for us. This is the same as what you describe as "if particles only exist to each other as far and for as long as they manage to communicate their existence physically".

2) What we describe is the state of the object (may be the cat) at a given instant.

3) This state is not a static state, but is a dynamic state. Thus the result of measurement (wave function collapse) is not a fixed state, but only a fixed description of the state at a designated instant.

4) The time evolution of the object has nothing to do with the measurement (observation), as it is external to its functioning and dynamics.

5) The result of measurement is one only to the conscious agent. Unless he communicates it to someone else, the other will not perceive it as such (for him the object continues to be in the superposition of all possible states). Then the wave-function collapse would be different for each person, which is absurd. Thus, we hold that this is a wrong description of facts. It is perception (which we have described in our essay as the interaction of the field set up by the object, which moves in waves, with that of our eyes), and not collapse of wave function.

Regarding the description of the Universe as a closed system that spins, we stand by what we have said. If we admit multiverses, you will agree that all of them must be existing within something. It arises naturally in our model, about which we will write soon. However, your description is true, which we will clarify later.

What we meant by "Each body acts as one indivisible system" is that, we describe all bodies and its parts differently. To be described as such, the body must be described as a whole and not by its parts. If the body is not described as a whole, it cannot be described as such. This does not mean that they do not interact with others. In fact, we define time as that which orders the interval between events (change suggestive) and describe time as having infinite dimension, which implies that all objects are time variant. This in turn implies that everything is ever changing. Change implies displacement from the position occupied - however infinitesimal. This is possible only if the bodies interact with other bodies. In fact, we treat as one of the most fundamental necessities of creation. We fully agree with your view that: "there is no completely independent information inside any system it can hide from being expressed in its own behavior as well as in that of its neighbors. The uncertainty resides in the impossibility to draw a border between the system as the source of whatever its presence does to the environment and the system as the product of influences from that environment, from neighboring systems".

Regarding "All bodies are created from the same fundamental particles", we only clarify that it flows from our model naturally. We with-hold the details till we bring out the complete theory.

We will reply to your answer in your post.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for raising one of the most puzzling questions that has confounded the scientific community for over a century since 30-06-1905.

Relativity is a wrong description of facts due to the simple reason that if two frames of reference are not related by a much bigger frame of reference encompassing both, then the actions in each cannot be related to that of another. If both the frames of reference are related by a much bigger frame of reference encompassing both, then relativity vanishes. This is the A-time, B-time and C-time proposed by Einstein in his 1905 paper. Here C is the special preferred frame of reference. Thus, the relativity term simply vanishes, reducing all of his "mathematics" to logically inconsistent and manipulations of figures. We have also shown that the length measurement system advocated by Einstein is wrong as described below:

Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", which became his celebrated paper on SRT. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.

Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-

(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod".

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.

The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system". This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.

Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:

• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.

Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation. Regarding the other points raised in your essay, we have discussed many in our essay.

The video suggested by you simply ignores the fact that for two frames of reference to be related, they must be the part of a bigger frame of reference, which is a special frame of reference for the other two frames making the relativistic term to vanish. We will be happy to offer any clarification.

Regards,

basudeba.

Thanks,

We had replied in your thread.

Regards,

basudeba

Hello dear Basudeba,

How are you fine I hope, these indian numbers vaidics are relevant. I thank you for your book about vaidic numbers. It's so spiritual.

All is the same and linked since the begining,.....we loose our ecosystems dear Basudeba, we loose our contemplations around us, how is it possible for humans to be happy if those contemplations of creations aren't a reality. Our towns are sick, ill, we pollute, we consum , we destroy .....the soils must be restabilized, the composting at big scale more the harmonious growth...more the vegetal multiplication......even the purification of waters can be made with compost. It's the solution dear basudeba, the ecosystems and their dances and sings.....the towns must rethought....locomotion,nutrition,reproduction....production, cosummation,decomposition..............I have invented several models in ecology, and I optimize my theoretical model of sphere of composting,PV=nRT...Closed system....hv H20 O2 bacterias C/N....optimization of rotations and parameters of acceleration of process of decomposition,this sphere of composting produces E with natural matters and H2O and O2 and selectedbacterias and hands and consciouss and eyes of humans...... the totipotence , vegetal is interesting also in theory we can have a system of polarization also with a kind of perpetual motion due to the universal increase of entropy.In fact the matter is created with an argilo humic complex and adds as oligo elts or mineral salts more bacterias, perlit, vermiculit..... after the creation and the dynamic continues naturally,But it's an other story.

In India you have several problems with the gange,the compiost and natural filters are essential more a turbin of acceleration of purification.....I have several models also , very cheap and natural and easy to put into practices.But for concrete resulst, the ecosystems and the vegetal and animal mass must be increased.If not it lacks a biomass and the cycle will be more difficult.Firstly the government for the well of all must implant some basic laws for ecology.Simply a town or a region must increase its mass of vegetals.It's the priority with the composting.In fact all countries must act as that...for x mass of non biological matters an y mass of vegetals and animals (all insects, unicells, pluricells,....)the soil thus is the base.The substrates of towns must be always harmonious and in evolution of complemenatrity. We can't live without our ecosystems, even for New York and others big towns.

Best Regards

Steve

Sorry dear Sir, It is a bad habit,I forget, sorry.I write too quickly without rereading sometimes.

You know I just read your post on the thread on phill, it's the first time that somebody says that of me,I am touched,humbly I thank you very much.I don't know what I must say,it's so nice. In all case it's a honor and a pleasure to know you.

Steve

Dear Sir,

In this forum we are discussing science and not philosophy, though we know something about it also. We understand human psychology, as we understand physics. Physics deals with the natural phenomena as perceived by conscious beings. Conscious actions are related to mental functions. We hold that mind functions mechanically. Hence, without a knowledge of physics, we cannot understand psychology and vice versa.

You are concerned about: "It's the solution dear basudeba, the ecosystems and their dances and sings.....the towns must rethought....locomotion,nutrition,reproduction....production,

cosummation,decomposition." So are we.

But we focus more on the basic concepts or causes than events, that are effects.

If you read history, you will find the boasting of several scientists nearly a century ago as to how man has conquered the Nature and how some eminent scientists declared about 80 years ago that science will be completely known in a few months time. But now no one talks in that language. In our analysis, we have created the present problem. It is painful, but it is true. We had a prophesy, which said that ground water will be polluted around 1900 AD. If you recollect, modern toilet pits and discharge of chemical pollutants to rivers began around the same time. This was fore told. The same prophesy says that life form as we know now will not exist by 6800 AD. We can see the effect of bio-technology, terminator genes, increased use of pesticides, etc, which will lead in that direction. Already American children are being born under-weight.

Science is now guided by commercial considerations. You are sincerely trying to stem the rut and turn the tide. There are many others who are trying like you. But for every such attempt, there are hundreds of attempts to drag us in the opposite direction. Earlier people used to die younger. Now even if they are suffering, they won't die. We prefer to die young but healthy. By this we do not want to discourage you. You are doing a noble deed. But the innumerable men doing research for commercial purposes will ensure the destruction of all. The theoretical scientists have let them down and in the process let the Society down. Even though many are aware of the defects of modern science and the need for its evaluation, they do not want to admit that for the last several decades they were fooling the public by telling them mysterious facts about the quantum world, so that they can enjoy a cozy life at public expenses. Just look at the fact that even though LHC experiment failed to find Higg's boson and Tevatron is closing down, no one is willing to admit that Standard Model is wrong. In fact, there is work going on for upgradation of LHC and running it for one more year. Think of the collosal waste of public money. And when we point out the defects of modern science and suggest an alternative model, we are being accused of deviating from "main stream physics" and "dirtying" it. How we hope in stead of criticizing us, they should guide the experimental scientists in the proper direction and prevent them fro creating Frankenstein's monsters. Compare the advancement of atomic physics and its application. The few who discovered the theories never fore-saw its misuse. Now we get energy out of it. But send the nuclear waste to other Countries for disposal as scrap so that let others die. But one day that will catch up with us also.

We believe that Nature is the best teacher. Hence we have derived a complete model to describe not only all the fundamental forces and particles, but also unite "Observer" in that theory. In many of the threads you will find that we have given different explanations for entanglement, superposition, dimensions, number and number sequences, relativity, measurement problem, etc. We are not interested whether any one reads it or not. We know after many many years people will admit the mistakes of the present generation. But then possibly it would be meaningless.

Thanks and regards,

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

All that is relevant, the sciences are the sciences and we can speak in transparence. The world chages dear Sir due to this net and transparence.

All this reveals a gentle spirituality, I congratulate you, It is rare indeed to meet real universal and humble creations. I'm sure you're a real humble rejecting the vanity and vices. Is not she the sister of pride?

The most important thing is to continue to observe the flight of a bee in the honey, sweetness of our hopes. Compassion in your hand and love in the other. This is the coronation of the humble traveller of the stars.

Trade,monney is a mistake, and his children are unconscious. It exists dear very respected brother human, good and bad everywhere in the corners of this holy land. This point of vue is important, in all countries, religions,cultures,... We are all equal in the eyes of distant winds. Borders are like money, tricks UnHoly. The weapons are like the differences, dedicated te be melted.

Psychology is a reflection of our emotions and our evolution.But we evolve fortunally.

Humans accumulate errors, some Exponential watch unfortunately....

You know dear Sir, the universal sphere has an aim, this equation is on the road of harmonization, spherization. The only thing important is to unite the real universalists, and act with sciences, the rest is vain, and important above the frontiers, the differences and monney, it's the real unification. The business team around the sciences aren't important, the most important is the real universality and humanism. They are just unconsciouss, that's all, it's like that. That's why the responsability becomes so essential. The rest is vain, we just need to help the forgotten by adapted solutions, and of course the ideas of several are better than ideas of one person,it's the universal complementarity of optimization simply.

Best Regards

Take care brother human.

Steve

We are posting below our comments on the Essay of Ms G. P. Parry. Because we are discussing some fundamental issues relating to unification of forces, we are posting it here also.

We are neither the first, last nor the only proponent of re-evaluation of modern physics. In this forum, we are dealing only with physics - discussing theories that correspond to reality in all its different manifestations - and neither philosophy nor meta-physics. You must recognize that observer has an important role in quantum physics and discussion about it is not philosophy.

We are only pointing to the blurring of the diving lines between education, knowledge and science. You can try to educate somebody. But you cannot make him learn. The purpose of education is to educate - receiving/imparting (and as a consequence also receiving) information that can be stored in the memory and retrieved as and when necessary to initiate the required mechanism for getting the desired outcome. Thus, it is related to the potential for using information efficiently and has nothing to do with knowledge or science per se (an Engineer and a mechanic can perform the same task with equal efficiency), though we use science as a tool for imparting education. Unfortunately, the present education system has degenerated to memorization and reproduction of certain facts in an expected manner and the potential for the same has been linked to knowledge.

Knowledge is related to unification of the various sensory impulses to create a stable memory. None of the fundamental forces of Nature in isolation is useful for creation. Only collectively they can create stable systems. Similarly, knowledge, which unifies the different perceptions, is stable. Science is related to the opposite process of individuation - of processing or analysis of individual sensory impulses with the help of memory. Processing here is nothing but measurement, which in turn is comparison between similars. Individual sensory perceptions are not knowledge, but evolution of knowledge in limited directions, which has the potential to change the nature of the world around us in desired directions (sometimes in disastrous directions). The purpose of our writing this is to focus the discussion on the failure of theoretical scientists to lead the experimental scientists. As we can see, without theoretical guidance, the experimental scientists are creating Frankenstein's Monsters, which will gobble us all.

You have raised an important question relating to time. You say: "Time is a very complicated term as a large number of concepts are lumped together within it". This because of two reasons: reductionism and lack of an unambiguous and precise definition of time. Regarding the first point, we will quote an anecdote. Six blind persons went to "see" an elephant. They touched one of its limbs each and described the elephant based on their perception. According to reductionism, each description is scientifically proved. But even if you combine all their statements, one who has not seen an elephant can never have a complete picture of the animal. On the other hand, one who has seen the animal can easily appreciate the correctness of the statements. Something similar happens in the case of time. We do not consider all aspects of time, because we have not defined time unambiguously and precisely. Do it and see for yourself - all the anomalies vanish. We have done that and the results can be seen in our essay and various other posts by us under different threads here - specifically those of Mr. Biermans and Mr. Castel.

You discuss observed Image reality and unobserved Image reality. By this we understand directly perceptible and indirectly perceptible or inferred. You have rightly clubbed them into one group. We call this group existence.

You say: "Where and when an image appears to exist is dependent upon the observer reference frame and is not intrinsic to the object itself." We agree and only add that the external environment introduces an element of uncertainty due to its effect on perception by the observer. We have discussed this aspect elaborately in our essay. From this we infer that uncertainty is not a law of Nature. It is a result of natural laws relating to observation that reveal a kind of granularity at certain levels of existence that is related to causality.

You say: "The description of reality is affected by the methods of investigation used, the pre-existing concepts applied and mathematical modeling employed." Unless the perception (results of measurement) is described in communicable language, (or self realized) it does not make any sense. Hence, we call these as describability.

You say: "If a description requires acceptance of paradox, unreality of all things, quasi reality or supernatural agents or realms, yet is a description that fits with observation, it must be incomplete if not incorrect or non science". This shows that there is a limit on our ability to "know". Hence, we call these as knowability. We combine these aspects and define reality that satisfies these criteria.

You say: "The mathematical space-time model is a construct giving a mathematical representation that fits well with observations of Image reality but is not a complete model of reality." We have shown in our essay that Nature is mathematical only in specified ways. Regarding space, time, space-time and arrow of time, we have discussed briefly in our essay and in our comments under the threads of Mr. Biermans, Mr. Castel, etc. We have written a book in which we have discussed on this subject in detail.

We agree that: "Image reality is a means of amalgamating information that arrives together, rather than that which was generated together." But we do not agree with your description that it does not require a conscious observer. In fact we call the agency that amalgamates the information as the conscious observer. You say that this information can be amalgamated by a mechanical detector. But then the resultant information is in a superposition of all possible states, because the so-called wave function collapse can occur only after it is measured (perceived) by a conscious observer. Thus, ultimately, we have to admit the conscious observer.

You say: "The data contained in the image is not from contemporaneous origin so the image is not temporally homogeneous." We agree and have discussed it at various places. The data (result of measurement) is the description of the state at a designated instant. We do not agree that "present is a composite formed from data, experienced simultaneously". We posit that all systems are dynamical systems. Present is a designated instant in analog time that depicts the temporally evolved state of a dynamical system at that designated instant. Thus, we cannot agree that: "The Image reality becomes a manifestation when the simulation is formed from the available data. It does not exist prior to that process." It certainly existed prior to that process, though in a different state. Further this proves the existence of the conscious observer. Otherwise, your statement that it will "...becomes a manifestation" becomes meaningless.

When you differentiate between "current time" and "Uni-temporal, or Objective, Now", you are leaving out the definition of time from the above description. Both space and time are related to sequence. Time is the ordering of the interval between events just like space is the ordering of the interval between objects. Both are indirectly perceptible through events and objects only. We take a segment of this interval, which is fairly repetitive and easily intelligible, and call it the unit. We compare this unit with the interval between objects and events and call these as space and time. Since space and time are indirectly perceptible, they are described through alternative symbolism by describing the objects or events associated with these. We can choose a segment from any or all event sequences without interfering with the laws of physics. When we restrict our description to a single sequence, it is "current time". When we widen our choice to encompass the whole universe, we call it simultaneity or "Uni-temporal, or Objective, Now".

You say: "Change or potential for change can be regarded as energy." What you are describing here is the effect of energy, which you are confusing with energy proper, which is the cause. We agree that "Energy is never destroyed. So change is continual and inevitable." But what is energy? We hold the homogeneous primordial field as the back ground structure of creation. By a mechanism which we are not discussing here, instability in the medium leads to a chain of events giving rise to "time", as we know it. This created inertia of motion, which was opposed by the inertia of restoration (elasticity) of the medium. This interaction, according to the same mechanism led to the density variation. This also leads to local confinement, which became the particles. Generation of particles led to further density variation. The inertia of restoration then pushed the particles around, which is seen as the effect of energy on those particles. This effect is experienced at two levels: proximity or intra-particle and distance or inter-particle. Depending upon the proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance variables, the effects are experienced as strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and radioactive disintegration forces. Gravity is a composite force that stabilizes: the orbits of planets and stars and the orbital of atoms. Since stabilization depends on density distribution, gravity is related to mass. Since density of intervals between objects is relatively less, in a closed system like Earth-Moon or Sun-planets, the density of the medium appears homogeneous. Hence, gravity is related to distance. The inter-relationship appears as the gravitational constant. Thus, you are right that: "Energy is never destroyed. So change is continual and inevitable."

Your description of air traffic control hints at a few fundamental principle. If you accept space as the ordering of the interval between objects, then position becomes a function of (or relative to) the ordering you choose. But this description can be meaningful only between the two objects that are joined by the interval. Thus, they belong to a specific frame of reference. If we want to relate their relationship with that of another object, then the other object must be within the same frame of reference or the frame of reference (interval) must be enlarged to bring the other object within it. This is what Einstein describes in his 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":

1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

Here clock at C is the privileged frame of reference. Yet, he tells the opposite by denying any privileged frame of reference. Further, his description of the length measurement is faulty. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.

Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-

(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod".

In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.

The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system". This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.

Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:

• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.

Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation. Regarding the other points raised in your essay, we have discussed many in our essay. We will be happy to offer further clarification.

basudeba

Dear Sir,

You are being philosophical, while we were pointing out the plight of scientific research. The failure of theoretical scientists to admit the mistakes and re-evaluate physics leads many persons towards experimental physics. We know some eminent scientists who became frustrated about the "conformism" in physics and in disgust left theoretical physics for experimental physics. Without the backing of theoretical physics, experimental physics may lead to disastrous consequences. If you want to discuss more on this issue, you may write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba.