2020 Vision. A Model of Discretion in Space by Peter A Jackson

Thanks for the advice Peter.

Cheers,

Alan

Peter

After reading your post on my essay I reviewed yours. I could follow your arguments and most of the math. I find your approach to gravity and light most interesting. I have also read most of the other posts and some of the other articles. I find all of them facinating. In your paper I have to presume that you are making the argument for Reality being digital, although I did not find any statement to that effect. As I pointed out in my paper, we do not yet have evidence enough to determine the fundimental question presented. The next 50 years should be a most interesting time in physics and math. When we solve the problem of physical dimensioning below the Planck length and the action of particles therein, and when we discover the "graviton" (which I believe we will), we will be in a better position to answer the question posed.

Again, thank you for some interesting reading.

Henri

"But would any paradigm adjustment be possible by 2020?"

Paradigm adjusment be possible by 2011.

See Blumschein essay.

Sorry Peter,

I do not know what a Grand Slam is, and the more you are trying to enlighten me the less I see my questions answered.

Good luck in the contest,

Eckard

Dear Sir,

We had gone through your explanations and once again through your essay.

We agree with your views that "Science itself can be discrete at times, not always linking to form a seamless body of knowledge". In fact we term the "seamless body" as "knowledge" and the "discrete segments" as "science" or "special knowledge about a segment of Nature". We not agree that "Separate disciplines are imposed by man", though we agree that "yet all nature must be connected." There are natural divisions which we perceive separately and differently. For this reason, while most of the times we may be talking about the same issue, it may appear different. Because while we talk more on general terms applicable to all, you generally limit it to specific examples like electromagnetic radiation.

We agree that "Wave oscillations can modulate particle oscillation and vice versa." We treat field as the ultimate reality and particles as locally confined fields. We treat the field as moving with maximum velocity, which we treat as the limiting velocity. This can be said to be space with motion in it - the space-time curvature of Einstein. Since the density of the field and the particle is different, it interacts with the field that creates different motions (curves). When you say: "spectroscopy shows low density gases can still change em wave speed to their own local c/n", you only conform this. This motion is described as gravity. This curvature is more where the particle is more dense - massive. Hence gravity is related to mass. Since density is inversely related to area in addition to mass, gravity is also inversely related to distance of the intervening field (hence the second order term).

Obviously, the field polarizes the particles in its direction of local motion. This direction, in turn, is dependent upon the local distribution of particles and bodies. The general principle is: a more massive particle will not only move slowly, but also hinder the local velocity of the field. Thus, two forces will act on the other particles: one due to the motion of the field and the other due to the effect of the massive body on the local field. Since each particle has its effect on the local field, this generates different interactions. We describe the interactions as follows.

Before we discuss the force we were referring to as gravity, we will like to discuss something about force itself. A force is experienced only in a field (we call it rayi). Thus, it is a conjugate of the field. If something is placed in a field, it experiences something else. This something else is a kind of force. Depending upon the density variations of the field, we experience the force differently. Hence we call it by different names. While the field is one, the forces are many. Since they are conjugates, we can also say that different forces create different variations in the field.

The basic nature of the field is equilibrium. The basic nature of forces is displacement. This gives rise to two different types of inertia: inertia of motion due to forces and inertia of restoration (elasticity) due to the field. This leads to both these inertia acting against a point of equilibrium. In such a scenario, the combined effect leads to confinement around the point of equilibrium. The confined structure is called particle. Thus, all particles have a central point of mass or nucleus, an extra nuclear field surrounding it and fixed orbitals confining it. This is the common feature of all particles be they quarks or the Cosmos. The confinement may also cover the field without the central point. This is caused due to non-linear interaction of the forces. We will describe the mechanism separately. In such a case the field behaves like a fluid. The latest finding of LHC is that the Universe was created from such a super-fluid and not gases. The confined field also interacts with the Universal field due to difference in density. This in turn modifies the nature of interactions at different points in the medium (Universal field).

A force can act only between two particles as only a particle can influence the field, which in turn can be experienced by another particle. If the external force of the field is more than the confining force of the two particles, then the two particles break up and join to form a new particle. We call this "sambhuti". In the opposite case, the two particles experience the force without being internally affected. The force acts between the centers' of mass of each treating each as a point particle. We call it "bibhuti". This second category of relationship, which we call "udyaama", is known as gravity. Since it stabilizes the two bodies at the maximum permissible distance between them depending upon their respective masses, we call it "urugaaya pratisthaa". For reasons to be discussed separately, this is possible only if gravity is treated as a composite force.

The first category of forces, which are interactions between two bodies, acts differently based on proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance - proximity and distance - distance variables. We call these relationships "antaryaama", "vahiryaama", "upayaama" and "yaatayaama" respectively. This interaction affects the field also inducing various local disturbances. These disturbances are known as "nitya gati", "yagnya gati", "samprasaada gati" and "saamparaaya gati" respectively. Any particle entering the field at those points feels these disturbances, which are known as the strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively. Thus, you can see that gravity belongs to a completely different group of forces and cannot be integrated with other fundamental forces of Nature in the normal process. Yet, it has a different function by which other forces can be derived from it. We will discuss that separately.

According to our theory, gravity is a composite force of seven forces that are generated based on their charge. Thus, they are related to charge interactions. But we do not accept Coulomb's law. We have a different theory for it. We derive it from fundamental principles. In Coulomb's law, F = k Q1 x Q2 /d^2. In a charge neutral object, either Q1 or Q2 will be zero reducing the whole equation to zero. This implies that no interaction is possible between a charged object and a charge neutral object. But this is contrary to experience. Hence the format of Coulomb's law is wrong.

As we have repeatedly described, the atoms can be stable only when they are slightly negatively charged which makes the force directed towards the nucleus dominate the opposite force, but is not apparent from outside. Hence we do not experience it. We have theoretically derived the value of the electric charge of protons, neutrons and electrons as +10/11, -1/11 and -1. The negative sign indicates that the net force is directed towards the nucleus. Charge interaction takes place when a particle tries to attain equilibrium by coupling with another particle having similar charge. The proton has +10/11 charge means it is deficient in -1/11 charge. The general principle is same charge attracts. Thus, it interacts with the negative charge of electrons. The resultant hydrogen atom has a net charge of -1/11. Thus, it is highly reactionary. This -1/11 charge interacts with that of the neutron to form stable particles. These interactions can be of four types.

Positive + positive = explosive. By this, what we mean is the fusion reaction that leads to unleashing of huge amounts of energy. It's opposite is also true in the case of fission, but since it is reduction, there is less energy release.

Positive + negative (total interaction) = internally creative (increased atomic number.) This means that if one proton and one electron is added to the atom, the atomic number goes up.

Positive + negative (partial interaction) = externally creative (becomes an ion.) This means that if one proton or one electron is added to the atom, the atom becomes ionic.

Negative + negative = no reaction. What it actually means is that though there will be no reaction between the two negatively charged particles; they will appear to repel each other as their nature is confinement. Like two pots that confine water cannot occupy the same place and if one is placed near another with some areas overlapping, then both repel each other. This is shown in the "Wheeler's Aharonov-Bohm experiment".

Both space and time are related to the order of arrangement in the field, i.e., sequence of objects and events contained in them like the design on a fabric. Both space and time co-exist like the fabric and its back ground color. The perception of each sequence is interrupted by an interval however infinitesimal. The interval between objects is called space and that between events is called time. We take a fairly intelligible and repetitive interval and use it as the unit, where necessary by subdividing it. We compare the designated interval with this unit interval and call the result measurement of space and time respectively.

Since space and time have no physical existence like particles and fields, we use alternative symbolism of objects and events to describe them. Thus, what Euclid called space is not the interval between objects, but the basic frame of reference on which the objects are placed as markers. To this extent he is right. Dedekind and others did not know this concept. Hence they wrongly held that "it is possible to construct discontinuous spaces in which Euclidean geometry holds". Geometry is related to measurement of space and no measurement except distance (line) is possible in discontinuous spaces like in the interval between a point on Earth and another point on the Sun or Moon. However, this fallacy was not apparent to the others who built theories upon such invalid foundation. Since space is the interval between objects, the space is continuous throughout the Universe.

We also happen to know something about Astronomy and Cosmology. Hence we understand your essay and can explain the interactions based on the above description.

Regarding Lorentz transformation we have to say that it is only apparent and is a consequence of the mechanism of interaction that leads to the uncertainty

Special Relativity is not only conceptually, but also mathematically wrong. This is what Einstein describes in his 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":

Einstein: We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:

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

6. 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.

Our comments: Here clock at A 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.

His "mathematics" using the equation for the sphere is all wrong. For example, he has used equations x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 = 0 and ξ^2 + η^2 + ζ^2 - c^2 τ^2 = 0 to describe two spheres that the observers see of the evolution of the same light pulse. Apart from the fact that the above equation of the sphere is mathematically wrong (it describes a sphere with the center at origin, whose z-axis is zero, i.e., not a sphere, but a circle), it also shows how the same treats time differently. Since general equation of sphere is supposed to be x^2+y^2+z^2+Dx+Ey+Fz+G = 0, both the equations can at best describe two spheres with origin at (0,0,0) and the points (x,y,z) and (ξ, η, ζ ) on the circumference of the respective spheres. Since the second person is moving away from the origin, the second equation is not applicable in his case. Assuming he sees the same sphere, he should know its origin (because he has already seen it, otherwise he will not know that it is the same light pulse. In the later case there is no way to correlate both pulses) and its present location. In other words, he will measure the same radius as the other person, implying: c^2t^2 = c^2 τ^2 or t = τ.

Again, if x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 = x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-c^2 τ ^2, t ≠ τ.

This creates a contradiction, which invalidates his mathematics.

The data relating to receding galaxies are insignificant in cosmic scales. It is evident only in larger scales of galactic clusters and super clusters only. It is not evident in lesser scales. Just like the planets in the solar system while orbiting the Sun sometimes appear to recede from each others while their satellites remain unaffected, the receding galaxy phenomenon can be explained by a revolving Universe. It must be remembered that spin is a universal characteristic of all closed systems. In various threads we have shown that gravity is not a single force that attracts, but a composite force that stabilizes and that it belongs to a different class that could not be coupled with other forces of Nature. The so-called gravitational constant is only a constant of proportionality whose value depends upon the masses of the bodies, the distances between them and the density of the medium that contains both. Thus, every time we measure its value precisely, we come up with different results. Similarly, the cosmological constant is only a constant of proportionality.

The Kaluza-Klein compactification and other "theories" relating to extra-dimensions are only figments of imagination. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For perception of the spread of the object, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the object must interact with that of our eyes. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both are perpendicular to the direction of motion, we can perceive the spread only in these three directions. Measuring the spread is essentially measuring the space occupied by it. This measurement can be done only with reference to some external frame of reference. For the above reason, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the structure (spread) of the object. Based on the positive and negative (spreading out and contracting in) directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x, y), (-x, y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y) where x = y for any value of x and y, which also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures.

Randall-Sundrum "braneworld" hypothesis in which the observable universe is housed within a three-dimensional membrane, or brane, that is itself floating in a warped, higher-dimensional anti-de Sitter space, called the bulk is only figments of imagination without any tangible proof to support these views. The same is true for holons. Data from LHC has proved super-symmetric and brane-world models are wrong. It is high time scientists come out of the mania of chasing a mirage and start re-writing a new physics based on the data available at present. We have an alternate model derived from fundamental principles by which we can explain the "creation event" to evolution of forces to structure formation and evolution.

Regards,

basudeba.

Sir,

We were extremely happy to read your reply which tends to resolve many of our perceived differences. We have not repeated our essay in the post, but covered other areas. As we have said, while most of the times we may be talking about the same issue, it may appear different because while we talk more on general terms applicable to all interactions, you generally limit it to specific examples like electromagnetic radiation. Secondly, we have derived our theories from fundamental principles starting with creation event and moved to specific branches that evolved naturally. But you follow the opposite path of relying on available data to reach the common source. Thus, our explanations differ. Thirdly, we have not presented our complete theory in the public domain till now. Hence it is not surprising that few people could fathom its implications - specifically since we conceptually differ from almost all accepted theories while explaining Nature.

Fourthly, contrary to most scientists who use only an operational definition for most terms which can be suitably manipulated to meet the requirements of their theories, we stick to a precise definition throughout. For example, till now there is no precise definition regarding what constitutes a quantum particle. Different people define it differently. There are some overlapping in some cases between quantum particles and classical particles. We define particles as locally confined fields. Thus, we classify them into three groups. The quantum particles in our description are called "asato dhriti", which literally means those which are not stable by themselves and join to form another particle with a completely different characteristic. This covers not only all quantum particles, but also more. The classical particles in our description are called "sato dhriti", which literally means those which are only a combination of other particles that retain their individual characteristic while being part of the said combination. This covers all macro particles, whose chemical characteristics are determined by the combination of the characteristics of the atoms that constitute them. Both these types of particles have a center of mass, which is in equilibrium. While no particle can exist without this point, these points can exist independently in the field, around which confinement takes place. We call these "atma dhriti", which literally means stable independent of others. We extend these principles to explain most of the characteristics of the particles. As you can see, we are not repeating our essay.

Now we will come back to your reply. You say: "The transit of light energy PAST an observer can only be observed when transmitted in a medium, i.e. by atomic scattering from medium particles. So the signal can only ever be experienced when RECEIVED, which is either by SECONDARY scattering, or direct from the source. As we know, em energy can only ever be scattered at 'c' wrt the scattering particle. Indeed when received by any 'matter' (eye or instrument) it is scattered by the medium of the receiver BEFORE measurement, so we will ALWAYS find it doing 'c'."

We understand it fully, but explain it differently. In our essay we have discussed the mechanism of ocular perception and shown that it is nothing but the result of measurement, which is a comparison between similars. Here the disturbance created by the source in the medium interacts (gets compared or measured) with the disturbance created by our eye or the measuring instrument in the same medium. This is how we perceive directly or indirectly. We admit the existence of medium, but impute uncertainty due to the interaction with the medium. Thus, the perception after scattering and direct perception is not the same thing. What you describe as "c" is the velocity of the medium. This remains practically constant in space. Thus, you can see that we describe the same phenomenon differently. You can check this against the empirical evidence and you will find it entirely consistent with fundamental principles of Nature. No anomalies!

The only difference is you use "dark matter" and "dark energy" without precisely defining these terms and without direct proof of their existence. We do not depend on unverified postulates. We have defined "curved space-time" differently in our previous post without using SR. If you say our interpretation of SR is 99 percent correct, then how can you base your argument on such a wrong notion? We agree with your interpretation of the third frame. But it does not change our theory. It corroborates our theory that everything is moving in the field. The three frames are equally affected by it. The inadequacy of GR has been proved by the Pioneer Anomaly. We can explain not only the Pioneer Anomaly, but also the deflection of Voyager beyond the orbit of Saturn and the Fly-by Anomaly with our theory of gravitation.

The Bow shock might have come as a surprise to you, but we knew its existence long before it was discovered. Look at the Earth's magnetosphere and you will find the similarities. It is an interesting region of space, dominated by electric and magnetic phenomena, not by gravity. It is the most accessible example of "cosmic-scale plasma" which we can study. It has unique links to the solar wind and to the Sun. According to your theory, it is formed from two essential ingredients: Earth's magnetic field aligned approximately with the Earth's spin axis and the solar wind; a fully ionized hydrogen/helium plasma that streams continuously outward from the Sun into the solar system at speeds of about 300-800 kilometers per second. The solar wind is also pervaded by a large-scale interplanetary magnetic field, the solar magnetic field transported outward into the solar system by the solar wind plasma. There is a third ingredient that also plays an important role: the Earth's ionosphere. The upper atmosphere is partially ionized by far-ultraviolet and X rays from the Sun above altitudes of about 100 km. The resulting ionosphere forms a second source of plasma for the magnetosphere, mainly of protons, singly charged helium and oxygen, and the requisite number of electrons for electric charge neutrality.

According to our theory, the Earth's magnetosphere is formed not due to interaction with the solar wind, but with the large-scale interplanetary magnetic field. We call this "maatarishwaa". We call the plasma streamlines "savitaa" and the magnetic field lines "pavamaana." We interpret the interaction with solar wind differently. We will discuss about that later.

Regarding Einstein's light box, all we can say is it is a wrong description of facts like all his other theories. We have already discussed the c+v and c-v phenomenon, the uncertainty induced due to medium and the mechanism of perception. We have also said that it is the velocity of the field that appears as constant. Just like the Earth is moving (with the Sun with the galaxy and so on) with a general velocity, but still we can move differently on it, the motion of the box and like rays can create visual anomalies. These can be easily resolved without complicating the issues.

You talk about the pot of gold. We have a saying: "The truth about the Universe is hidden behind the Golden (radiating) disc of the Sun". So we do not look at gold, we look beyond it.

Regards,

Basudeba.

Peter,

I tried ... but my way of thinking is quite different from yours. I approach reality after I have constructed the corresponding abstract model. So it is good that we all have different ways of approaching reality. I wish I could be more helpful to you but, as you know, we all have our limitations ...

My best wishes to you!

Dear Sir,

You are a real seeker of truth. Thus, we will reveal some of our theories, which we had not done till now.

First answer to your question regarding how direct observation could be different. Since you are fond of spectroscopy, we will give you an example from that branch. Look at the mechanism behind the emission spectra and absorption spectra. Both the emitter and the observer are in the same bigger frame of reference linking both and separated by the field. You will admit that the scattering in the medium causes the difference.

You say: "direct light hitting the eye is also scattered." In our theory, different forces co-exist. Thus, it is not scattering, but comparison like when we measure (compare) the length of a rod by a scale. The scale is not scattered by the rod. When you say "it can be apparent when we move", you are falling into the trap laid by Einstein. We have discussed it elaborately earlier by giving the example of Eddington.

You have not defined dark matter or dark energy precisely. The phenomena cited by you as proof is indirect and not direct. We can explain those phenomena differently. You also admit this possibility indirectly when you say: "The plasma does the precise job our imaginary 'dark matter' does, and in the same places!"

You say: "The references again show that curved space time exactly matches the effects of diffraction (gentle refraction delays and path curvature) via scattering in plasma." We have given our interpretation of "curved space-time", which is different from GR and it can also explain the effects of diffraction equally correctly.

You say: "The separate terms plasma-sphere and ionosphere are really misnomers". But you admit their difference when you say: "they are a graded whole, proton rich low down and electron rich higher up." The grading is not smooth, but shows the same distribution like the arrangement of protons and electrons in an atom. Since protons and electrons are placed differently in nucleus and orbits, the plasma-sphere and ionosphere have to be treated as different. We divide the electric and magnetic fields into four types each based on their gradient. That, along with the interaction with the Solar wind will explain the rest of your comments.

Now we will explain 'velocity of the field', which also will explain the constancy of 'c'. We have already explained that the basic nature of the field is equilibrium. The basic nature of forces is displacement. This gives rise to two different types of inertia: inertia of motion due to forces and inertia of restoration (elasticity) due to the field. This leads to both these inertia acting against a point of equilibrium to create locally confined structures. These structures, which are nothing but confined field is called "rayi". Both the inertias further act on "rayi". In such a scenario, the combined effect leads to repeated confinement around the point of equilibrium. The confined structures in which inertia of restoration dominates, is called particle (moorty). In the opposite case, it is called "amrita". This can be considered as your DFM.

The confinement could be strong, weak or loose, which leads to the formation of solids, fluids (including gases) and plasma. We call these 'dhruva", "dhartra" and "dharuna" respectively. Where the inertia of motion dominates, it appears as heat. Depending upon the nature of the particles, the propagation of heat is also classified into three categories. In solids, plasma and fluids, these are done by conduction, radiation and convection. We call these as "nirbhuja", "pratrirnna" and "ubhayamantarena" respectively. The third category gives rise to the electric field. Thus, electric behaves like a hot fluid.

Till now we were discussing about the confinement of "rayi" (where inertia of restoration dominates). In the opposite case, where inertia of motion dominates, "rayi" gives rise to three corresponding forces of cold confinement. These can explain the effects of the so-called "dark matter and dark energy". Magnetism belongs to this category. Thus, magnetism is a cold confining force. Since both these are different states of "rayi", electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same coin.

Till now we were discussing "rayi", which is a part of the primordial field dominated by inertia of restoration. The other part is dominated by inertia of motion, which we call "praana". The effect of this is felt by other bodies. Hence this gives rise to force. Depending on their effects on different bodies, these forces are classified into different groups discussed earlier. While strong, weak, electromagnetic and radioactive disintegration forces belong to this category associated with inertia of motion and heat, gravitational interaction is associated with inertia of restoration and cold. Thus, they cannot be united.

After a part of the primordial field is confined within "rayi", inertia of restoration in the field becomes weak and inertia of motion dominates. Thus, the field generates waves that expand rapidly in all directions. You call this big bang. The effects of "rayi" and "praana" in the primordial medium create the bow shock effect. This leads to reduced velocity of the wave, which ultimately stabilizes, cutting off a vast volume which we call universe. Since there is no reason to believe that it happens only in our locality, we believe in multiverses, which are similar universes and not as described by MWI.

After the bow shock comes to rest, the forces of inertia of motion and inertia of restoration cancel each other leading both to a superposition of states. We call this "maayaa". But the equilibrium is momentary, since the balance between "rayi" and "praana" within the confinement of "maayaa" has not been equated, the next moment inertia of restoration dominates and there is massive contraction. You call this inflation. We call this force "dhaaraa". This creates further interaction, which leads to structure formation. We call this "jaayaa". Outside the structures, the inertia of restoration still dominates. You call it the cosmic microwave back ground radiation. We call it "aapah". Thus, the universe can be picturised as an ocean containing many islands. The galaxies can be imagined to float in an "ocean" called "saraswaan", the stars can be imagined to float in an "ocean" called "nabhaswaan", and the Earth like planets can be imagined to float in an "ocean" called "samudra arnava".

Just like the Earth orbits the Sun and spins around its own axis due to the combined effects of the Sun's movement and that of the inter-stellar medium that move in different directions on the one hand, the different magnetic fields on the other hand (in a broader scale, these are the effects of "rayi and praana" and "dhaaraa and jaayaa"), the Universe as a whole also moves within the confines of "maayaa". This appears as the receding galaxies, just like the planets sometimes appear to move away from each other. This movement of the Universal field is constant for all structures. This is what you describe as "space has inertia and angular momentum."

It is well known that objects are perceived only during transition. The transition can be of two types: the object can move or the field containing the object can move while the object is stationary (both together are also possible, but they fall into these two groups). In the case of electromagnetic field in space, it is the field that moves at a constant velocity. You also admit it when you say: "ALL matter in motion is in motion with respect to a LOCAL background. Light entering the galaxy is Doppler shifted by the Halo to the galaxies 'c', again at the heliopause to the Sun's 'c', and at the Ionosphere to the Earths 'c', and on ad infinitum." The only difference is that you presume the particle is moving at 'c' with respect to the back ground, which you take as at rest. We take the opposite view of the background with us moving at 'c'. Like we do not experience the motion of the Earth, but think the Sun and the stars are orbiting it, we do not experience the motion of the back ground since we are also moving with it. But the effects in both cases are the same.

Regarding the 3 frames, you are on the right track. Here we quote from one of our posts under the Essay of Mr. Rafael Emmanuel Castel, where we had commented elaborately about Einstein's 1905 paper.

Einstein: We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:

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

4. 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.

Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous", or "synchronous", and of "time". The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.

Our comments: Einstein sets out in the introductory part of his paper: "...the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate...". The "Principle of Relativity" is restricted to comparison of the motion of one frame of reference relative to another. Introduction of a third frame of reference collapses the equations as it no longer remains relativistic. The clock at B has been taken as a privileged frame of reference for comparison of other frames of reference. If privileged frames of reference are acceptable for time measurement, then the same should be applicable for space measurement also, which invalidates the rest of the paper.

Simultaneity refers to occurrence of more than one action sequences, e.g.; events, which measure equal units in two similar action sequence measuring devices, e.g.; clocks, starting from a common reference point, e.g.; an epoch. It is the opposite of successive events. Synchronisation refers to the readings of more than one clock (or interval between event from an epoch), which do not require "clock correction", i.e.; when such readings are compared with a common or identical repetitive action sequence or action sequence measuring devices, their readings match. It is not the opposite of successive events, but can also be simultaneous - for example, two clocks synchronised with each other will give similar readings simultaneously. If one of the clocks give 24 hour reading while the other gives 12 hour reading, then half of the time they will give readings that are synchronized and simultaneous, while half of the time they will not be so. Yet, the results can be made to synchronize by deducting 12 hours from any reading beyond it in the clock giving 24 hours reading. Here the clocks will be synchronized through out, but give simultaneous readings alternatively in succession or otherwise.

In the definition of simultaneity given by Einstein, the two clocks situated at two distant points in the same frame of reference (whether the frame of reference is inertial or not is not relevant as both the clocks and points P and P' are fixed in the frame) are said to be synchronous, if their readings of the identical events in both clocks match. This only refers to the accuracy of mechanical functioning of the clocks and uniformity of the time unit used in both the clocks. This definition is nothing but telling the obvious in a complicated and confusing manner. Since the two clocks are synchronised, they should record equal time in both the frames of reference over equal interval.

We have also shown that if we follow the logic of Einstein, then we will land in a problem like the Russell's paradox of set theory. In one there cannot be many, implying, there cannot be a set of one element or a set of one element is superfluous. There cannot be many without one meaning there cannot be many elements, if there is no set - they would be individual members unrelated to each other as is a necessary condition of a set. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, a collection of objects is either a set with its elements or individual objects, which are not the elements of a set.

Let us examine set theory and consider the property p(x) : x  x, which means the defining property p(x) of any element x is such that it does not belong to x. Nothing appears unusual about such a property. Many sets have this property. A library [p(x)] is a collection of books. But a book is not a library (x  x). Now, suppose this property defines the set R = {x : x  x}. It must be possible to determine if RR or RR. However if RR, then the defining properties of R implies that RR, which contradicts the supposition that RR. Similarly, the supposition RR confers on R the right to be an element of R, again leading to a contradiction. The only possible conclusion is that, the property "x  x" cannot define a set. This idea is also known as the Axiom of Separation in Zermelo-Frankel set theory, which postulates that; "Objects can only be composed of other objects" or "Objects shall not contain themselves".

In order to avoid this paradox, it has to be ensured that a set is not a member of itself. It is convenient to choose a "largest" set in any given context called the universal set and confine the study to the elements of such universal set only. This set may vary in different contexts, but in a given set up, the universal set should be so specified that no occasion arises ever to digress from it. Otherwise, there is every danger of colliding with paradoxes such as the Russell paradox, which says that "S is the set of all sets which do not have themselves as a member. Is S a member of itself?" Or as it is put in the everyday language: "A man of Serville is shaved by the Barber of Serville id and only if the man does not shave himself?" Such is the problem in Special theory of Relativity.

Thus, "when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or - what comes to the same thing - to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch", we must refer to a common reference point for time measurement, which means that we have to apply "clock corrections" to individual clocks with reference to a common clock at the time of measurement which will make the readings of all clocks identical. (Einstein has also done it, when he defines synchronization in the para below). This implies that to accurately measure time by some clocks, we must depend upon a preferred clock, whose time has to be fixed with reference to the earlier set of clocks whose time is to be accurately measured. Alternatively, we will land with a set of unrelated events like the cawing of a crow and falling of a ripe date palm simultaneously. A stationery clock and a clock in a moving frame do not experience similar forces acting on them. If the forces acting on them affect the material of the clock, the readings of the clocks cannot be treated as time measurement. Because, in that case, we will land with different time units not related to a repetitive natural event - in other words, they are like individual elements not the members of a set. Hence, the readings cannot be compared to see whether they match or differ. The readings of such clocks can be compared only after applying clock correction to the moving clock. This clock correction has nothing to do with time dilation, but only to the mechanical malfunction of the clock.

There is nothing like empty space. Space, and the universe, is not empty, but full of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation from the Big-Bang. In addition to this, space would also seem to be full of a lot of other wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from low radio frequency to gamma rays. This can be shown by the fact that we are able to observe this radiation across the gaps between galaxies and even across the "voids" that have been identified. Since the universe is regarded as being homogeneous in all directions, it follows that any point in space will have radiation passing through it from every direction, bearing in mind Olber's paradox about infinite quantities etc. The "rips" in space-time that Feynman and others have written about are not currently a scientifically defined phenomenon. They are just a hypothetical concept - something that has not been observed or known to exist. Thus, "light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space" would be affected by these radiations and get distorted.

We will be happy to answer any more questions.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Peter,

Congrats for making it to the top ten! This is because of your relentless effort and innovative essay.I saw in your essay your visiualization of reality,as you said,from different cerebral hemispheres.It is good that you have tried to connect it to my theme of the essay and I gladly welcome it.Iam extremely sorry for not expressing my congrats before you posted your response to me.

Iam delighted to know how you have connected the idea of 'quantization of acceleration' to condensed matter physics thro' your imaginative article.

Regarding BHs,their existence for me was presumptuous.For this,please, go to my web-site "http://www.sreenath.webs.com".

Iam glad to hear that you have been invited to write/edit a GUT chapter in an EBook publication.I want to participate in this, if you are willing, by contributing an article.

Thanking you.

Sincerely

Sreenath.

Dear Sir,

We have declared that we are an amateur. Thus, it is not surprising that we do not understand much. However, because of the same reason, we are free from many cultural shackles that affect modern science. May be we are wrong, but it appears to us as if you are contradicting yourself.

First let us examine your assumptions. If you can't rationalize something, you "assume the problem is with me not the theory." We think this is equally bad as assuming the theory is wrong. You must visit the root of the issue and identify the contradictions. We go about it in 5 different steps, which we are not discussing. Then we proceed to examine the validity of the postulate in another 5 different steps, which we are not discussing. Ultimately, if it is proved, we accept the proof or else leave it as unsolved.

How can you: "ensure I fully understand and looks at different viewpoints and connections before rejecting anything." There may be other viewpoints and connections.

It is good to "head straight for the apparent clashes, anomalies and problem areas". But this should not mean "paradoxes are my life blood, as they all have a choice of solutions." If you go through our comments under various threads, you will see that we have confronted a large number of paradoxes and solved each and every one. But we do not claim that "paradoxes are my life blood". This has a negative connotation. We will give one example from aerodynamics.

When the planes faster than mach 1 were being developed, an infinity appeared in aerodynamic formulas, when the velocity of a body approached the velocity of sound in the medium where the body moved. The resistance of the medium to such motion turned out to be infinite. This would mean that supersonic motion would be impossible. But when the experiment showed otherwise, the issue was analyzed afresh. It was found that the aerodynamic formulas described the resistance in a continuous medium, without considering any abrupt jumps in density and pressure (you will be interested because we are talking about discrete space). However, the transition from subsonic to supersonic motion is associated with violating this condition. A shock wave (bow-shock that interests you) appears in the medium in front of the body thereby causing a jump in density and pressure of the medium in front of the wave. When the formulas were reviewed to include discontinuity of the medium, the infinity disappeared from the formula and the correct and finite values were returned.

This shows that whenever infinity appears in a formula, it points to either some missing parameters or a novel phenomenon. Thus, the mechanisms of renormalization or the brute force approach used by physicists are wrong. Yet, no one is going to admit or abandon it. The same is true for singularity. As long as you clutch to Relativity, you will continue with this mistake. Thankfully, we ignore Relativity, hence do not commit this mistake.

You "believe even QM will eventually prove logical to us once our understanding reaches the correct level". But how do you know what is the correct level? Scientists world over are saying for decades that Standard Model, SUSY and Higgs boson are correct models. How long we can continue to waste public money in such fanciful ideas?

We agree that Nature is the final arbiter. Hence we have derived all our theories from verifiable natural phenomena. You might have noticed we have not used any exotic mathematics or complex numbers in any of our formulations. All our definitions are precise and natural. We do not look for anomalies, we look for solutions.

Regarding "ONE 'bigger frame of reference' and they are not 'linked'," kindly read our reply again. Measurement is comparison between similars. We have given the Eddington's example earlier to show that you must move with the object to be measured at the same velocity. If you compare the result with another motion in a frame of reference not connected to your frame of reference, your result will be wrong. Kindly read it again carefully.

Regarding your bus example, we have read it earlier and in the above post written that "It is well known that objects are perceived only during transition. The transition can be of two types: the object can move or the field containing the object can move while the object is stationary (both together are also possible, but they fall into these two groups)." You have quoted us telling that different forces co-exist. You are describing the same with one example. While we are taking of concepts, you are taking of events. Then where is the contradiction? Apply our concept and tell us what is wrong. Is it because we did not follow your theory and explained the phenomena differently?

First you say: "The plasma does the precise job our imaginary 'dark matter' does, and in the same places!" Then you contradict yourself by saying: "You misunderstand ... I am saying PLASMA IS 'dark matter' - it's just a case of what we name it!" If plasma does the precise job of dark matter in the same places, it is not dark matter, but something different that does similar work in the same places. You say dark matter is imaginary, but plasma is not imaginary. Then how can plasma be dark matter. In any way, as far as we know, no one in the scientific community agrees with your views. Of course, we may be wrong.

We have derived your DFM, when we wrote: "The confined structures in which inertia of restoration dominates, is called particle (moorty). In the opposite case, it is called "amrita". This can be considered as your DFM." But you could not explain Nature the way we have described it. We have theoretically derived the charge of quarks that contains an error element of 3 percent over the accepted values. We have theoretically derived the charge of proton and neutron differently, which can be verified in the laboratory. We have theoretically deduced the value of the fine structure constant It is 7/960 (1/137) at the so called zero energy level and 7/900 (1/128) at 80 GeV level, which agrees with the measured values. Till date no other scientist has done it. We have given a different law to replace the Coulomb's Law. We have explained the origin of the fundamental forces of Nature and why efforts to unite gravity will not succeed. Can you derive these or other verifiable values from your theory or explain natural phenomena like we had done? If yes, please go ahead and prove yourself. Simple boasting is not "proof".

Once again, we are an amateur. We may be wrong. But our exact mistake should be pointed out with proof and not self-contradictory or preconceived superstition. That is not science. Nothing personal.

Regards,

basudeba.

Hi Peter,

I saw on another thread that you were concerned about me cutting up a couple of perfectly good soccer balls.

Too late! I bought a couple of inexpensive size 4 (kid-sized, regulation is size 5) soccer balls at the local discount store. One has black pentagons, and the other has pink pentagons (I wanted to be able to distinguish the two). I put 17 cuts into each of them, and have taped and glued one of them into a half torus. I still need to finish the second one. Some interesting geometries are arising from this mess - it looks like this "torus" will be oval shaped, and it may have hyperbolic saddle surfaces. If we are willing to warp the soccer ball's pentagons and hexagons enough, then we can make a perfect torus, but I'm trying to get an idea of what this torus looks like with more-or-less normal shaped pentagons and hexagons.

If my ideas about Buckyballs representing the core of a Black Hole, and about torsion reshaping these buckyballs into tori is correct, then these odd-shaped tori may represent the core of a rotating Black Hole. Carbon-60 Buckyballs have superconductor properties that expel electromagnetic fields. Wouldn't it be cool if this torus likewise excluded gravitational fields? That would be a GEM-like analogy that Edwin might enjoy...

Have Fun!

Sir,

The answer to your your quest about the core of black holes lies somewhere else.

Black holes, like neutron stars, are dominated by magnetic fields, which close on itself. Thus, they spiral inwards infinitely towards the center of mass. Being magnetic fields, they are also cooler regions. The mechanism of Sun spots are the same as that of the black holes. That's how they can exist at the center of hot galaxies. The current theory of black holes are totally wrong and must be discarded.

The structures dominated by magnetic fields three times numerous (99 different types in number) than those dominated by high energy structures like galaxies and stars. In case you want to know more about it, you may write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Peter and Basudeba,

I'm still playing with this 3-D puzzle with two butchered footballs, but I think that Basudeba is correct - it looks like I'm building a toroidal spiral...

It isn't a simple toroidal Moebius strip, it may be closer to a toroidal set of paradromic rings. I might need to cut up 4 more Buckyballs to see if they spiral around into a completed 1,080 degree loop. Is it worth the sacrifice of 6 perfectly good footballs (even if they are cheap kid-sized balls?) for the sake of progress?

Have Fun!

Oops! Not 1,080 degrees, but rather 1,440 degrees.