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

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.

I'm such a goof!

It would take a total of 4 soccer balls to wrap around 1,080 degrees worth, so I only need to sacrifice two more perfectly good footballs.

Have Fun!

Dear Sir,

Fun indeed! At public expenses! Though we pay sometimes for odd balls.

Have Fun.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Basudeba and Peter,

I'm a businessman and an independent researcher, so the soccer balls come out of my fun money. Four soccer balls at $4 each is not my most expensive hobby!

OK - Now to build a theoretical TOE model out of this geometry...

If we have spinning tetrahedra (Vladimir Tamari's essay - which ties in with Gingras' magnetic spin ice) at each of the 60 vertices of a truncated icosahedron, then this represents 240 = 4 x 60 degrees of freedom - which looks a lot like an E8 (also represented by an 8-D Gosset lattice). Now we rip and torque four of these nested soccer balls into a toroidal set of paradromic rings. We now have a 32-dimensional Spin(32) ~ E8 x E8 x E8 x E8. Based on anticipated symmetries, I would say that one of these E8's is real, one is imaginary, and the last two are quaternionic. This is twice as big as the SO(32) ~ E8 x E8 that Lawrence Crowell and I have been talking about, but the SO(32) always implied a 32-D Spin(32) of order 992 and/ or a 31-D SU(32) (my 28-D F-theoretical model in PSTJ 1,7 "The Nature of Dimensions" plus 3-D Space or 4-D Spacetime?) of order 1023.

I'm sorry - I get carried away with some of the math!

The next question:

Since we cannot see 32 dimensions in our classical scale, in which scales do these dimensions live?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

p.s. - Basudeba - I understand that you were concerned about the fairness of the Community vote. I think the purpose of the Community vote is to get some discussions going, and have some "peer review". It seems that so many of the participants were non-professionals that there weren't very many "professional reviews", and many votes came down to popularity. If this happened randomly, then it was in agreement with the rules.

Dear Sir,

We do not mix science and religion because science primarily relates to interaction between innate objects, whereas religion relates to cognitive processes. That is the reason psychology and philosophy are not part of science.

In response to your post dated Mar.22, we have given a reply and you can respond to it. It is not surprising that with a closed mind set you jump to conclusions, that are far from simple or true. Hence We agree to disagree. Let us terminate the discussion here as there seems to be little meeting ground.

Regards,

basudeba.

Basudeba

Mixing religion? Certainly not!. But I note you feel philosophy has no part to play in science. It may be said that theoretical science (previously 'natural philosophy') only ground to a halt and headed for it's current crisis when it eschewed philosophical logic. Logic and philosophy are inseparable. I believe also rigorous logic and science should not have been separated on the alter of mathematics.

You say; "..with a closed mind set you jump to conclusions, that are far from simple or true."

I have spent much time studying your theories, with a fully open mind, and gained a good understanding to enable comparisons to be drawn in critical areas, (despite the many Indian language terms). I have complimented your considerable work, pointed out the areas of agreement with the results of mine, and wished you well.

You have done little of this, yet feel it is you who can call me 'closed minded'! If becoming a 'scientist' means coming to such conclusions in the face of such contrary evidence it seems you may be making very good progress Basudeba.

I cannot agree with or follow this route, but wish you luck if you see no other path. My motto is 'seek and we shall find'. Many here are too busy selling to seek.

Peter

Quoting from F. Winterberg

University of Nevada

Reno, Nevada USA

"To overcome the present crisis several leading theoretical physicists have entered a maze of speculations from which there appears to be no escape: The conjectured existence of higher dimensional spaces, previously reserved by the spiritists as the seat for the ghosts of the dead, not supported by a single piece of physical evidence, with all physics laboratories still three-dimensional."

http://physics.unr.edu/Forms/myth.pdf

Hi Yuri,

We just met a couple of months ago, and we probably have a few ideas in common. I like your 3+1 dimensional arguments, but do you really think that is all there is?

I haven't always played with multiple dimensions. The Georgi-Glashow SU(5) preliminary "TOE" has a rank of 4 - which is the minimum dimensionality of a representative torus. And yet SU(5) is not large enough to contain gravity, and gives errors regarding proton decay. So the TOE is bigger than SU(5) - bigger than 4 dimensions.

Lisi's E8 TOE could be represented by an 8 dimensional Gosset lattice. I have some differences with Lisi (fundamentally related to spin statistics and supersymmetry as a unifying umbrella), and think that the TOE is even larger than this - even larger than 8 dimensions.

My essay implies that the importance of scales has been overlooked for the most part. If position and time represent 3+1 dimensions, do the reciprocal dynamic variables - momentum and energy represent another set of 3+1 dimensions? (I think so, and I think that this doubling of dimensions and/or degrees-of-freedom is due to supersymmetry.)

Where does Hilbert Space live? How is it that fundamental "point" particles have a property that we call "spin"? How do fundamental particles "know" their properties? Do these fundamental particles carry "programming" in hidden dimensions that require every electron to have the same intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar, to have the same rest mass of 511 KeV/c^2, and to have the same electric charge?

Personally, I cannot reconcile all of these concepts with only 3+1 dimensions. The rest of the trick is to explain why we only experience 3+1 dimensions - even though more most likely exists. Solution - Scales! Scales explain hyperspace. Scales explain marble and wooden quantities (Peter Van Gaalen's essay was largely overlooked in this contest, but his essay is a different argument for multiple dimensions, IMHO).

I understand that Science is based on Reality. If other dimensions exist, then we need to directly observe them or their effects. What if we have and interpreted it differently? What if Dark Energy is "leakage" from a scale of greater complexergy? (Larger and smaller numbers would be stable in a scale of greater complexergy, such as the multiverse scale.) What if strange looking events - such as the recent LHC "Gluon-quark plasma" could be explained by a discrete Spacetime structure? Would that imply more than 3+1 dimensions - such as a very tiny hyperspace scale?

Perhaps other FQXi bloggers would rename all of my arguments as degrees-of-freedom that live in our little 3+1 dimensional Universe, but you still need a "mechanism" that allows our 3+1 dimensional Spacetime to "reach out" and access these degrees-of-freedom.

In more popular terms, if a "Matrix" exists behind Reality that specifies all of our fundamental particles and interactions, then where is the "Matrix" programming? Is it like the computer near us - smart but existing in our 3+1 dimensions? Or must the "Matrix" programing exist beyond our 3+1 dimensional knowledge?

Opinions are like belly buttons - Everybody has one, but some are fuzzier than others. Apply a little bit of Philosophy to "Natural Philosophy" (Physics).

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Dr. Cosmic Ray

I think big difference between Ratio 3+1 an Ratio 3:1

To my opinion Time like illusion.

All the best

Yuri

Dear Sir,

The opinions of Dr. Cosmic Ray is very interesting - specifically: "Apply a little bit of Philosophy to "Natural Philosophy" (Physics)." So we reply from that perspective.

What is dimension? How is it different from direction? Can there be angles involving more than 360 degrees? These questions must be precisely and scientifically answered before we proceed further.

Dimension is the cause for differentiation between or different perception of internal and external structures of all objects. Whatever is confined by the dimension are internal and anything beyond it is external to the object. It has nothing to do with position, which is related to external objects only. An object can be placed anywhere with reference to another object, but it does not affect its dimension, as long as the structure is preserved. This is the reason why the term is applicable only to fixed structure objects, i.e., solids.

Direction is related to the interval and the order of arrangement of both external objects and internal components. The interval between two objects may not describe the true position or the order of arrangement an object with reference to another, as there are innumerable ways of arranging two objects with a fixed interval. The spatial interval between two objects may not be their true interval like on a geodesic. This necessitates the use of direction or sequentially differentiated spatial coordinates.

Besides the order of arrangement, the different forces act differently on objects. For example, the strong force always confines or contracts, i.e., moves from the boundary to the center of mass. The electromagnetic force always stretches, i.e., moves from higher concentration to lower concentration, i.e., from center to periphery. The weak force always permits the particles to "slide" over to couple with another. The radioactive disintegration always increases the distance between original objects, i.e., expands. Since the forces are perceptible only from the effect of their interaction with objects, by watching their direction of motion, we can determine their nature.

The space around us has been divided into 360 segments, which is the whole number mean between the solar year in days (366) and lunar year in days (354). Thus, the circle is said to have 360 degrees, which points to specific directions and its infinite projections in a discrete manner. Thus, there cannot be more than 360 degrees. What is meant by say 1080 degrees is that the particle moves thrice in circles that are not closed, but spirals. But then this is a wrong description, because the idea was derived from the motion of Earth around Sun, which is actually circular, but since the center (Sun) is moving, appears elliptical, though the ellipse is actually not closing on itself, but spirals. Since in the case of the Earth we do not use higher than 360 degrees, there is no reason to impose these unnatural descriptions in physics.

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

Dear Sir,

The opinions of Dr. Cosmic Ray is very interesting - specifically: "Apply a little bit of Philosophy to "Natural Philosophy" (Physics)." So we reply from that perspective.

What is dimension? How is it different from direction? Can there be angles involving more than 360 degrees? These questions must be precisely and scientifically answered before we proceed further.

Dimension is the cause for differentiation between or different perception of internal and external structures of all objects. Whatever is confined by the dimension are internal and anything beyond it is external to the object. It has nothing to do with position, which is related to external objects only. An object can be placed anywhere with reference to another object, but it does not affect its dimension, as long as the structure is preserved. This is the reason why the term is applicable only to fixed structure objects, i.e., solids.

Direction is related to the interval and the order of arrangement of both external objects and internal components. The interval between two objects may not describe the true position or the order of arrangement an object with reference to another, as there are innumerable ways of arranging two objects with a fixed interval. The spatial interval between two objects may not be their true interval like on a geodesic. This necessitates the use of direction or sequentially differentiated spatial coordinates.

Besides the order of arrangement, the different forces act differently on objects. For example, the strong force always confines or contracts, i.e., moves from the boundary to the center of mass. The electromagnetic force always stretches, i.e., moves from higher concentration to lower concentration, i.e., from center to periphery. The weak force always permits the particles to "slide" over to couple with another. The radioactive disintegration always increases the distance between original objects, i.e., expands. Since the forces are perceptible only from the effect of their interaction with objects, by watching their direction of motion, we can determine their nature.

The space around us has been divided into 360 segments, which is the whole number mean between the solar year in days (366) and lunar year in days (354). Thus, the circle is said to have 360 degrees, which points to specific directions and its infinite projections in a discrete manner. Thus, there cannot be more than 360 degrees. What is meant by say 1080 degrees is that the particle moves thrice in circles that are not closed, but spirals. But then this is a wrong description, because the idea was derived from the motion of Earth around Sun, which is actually circular, but since the center (Sun) is moving, appears elliptical, though the ellipse is actually not closing on itself, but spirals. Since in the case of the Earth we do not use higher than 360 degrees, there is no reason to impose these unnatural descriptions in physics.

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

Dear Sir,

Dr. Cosmic Ray has opined earlier in this thread "Apply a little bit of Philosophy to "Natural Philosophy" (Physics)." Thereby he distinguished philosophy from Natural Philosophy. We meant that only. You will find in all our responses that we use rigorous logic and Natural Philosophy ONLY. Can it be said about all others?

Had you read our post dated Mar.22, you would have responded differently. Since you did not read it earlier, we are reproducing it for you.

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.

Basudeba

Thanks for re-posting your post of 22nd (1 of 3) which I have gone through again in details. The following needs explanation as the 'contradictions' are indeed only apparent;

1) In saying I do the opposite to most and 'assume the problem is with me' it means I don't turn away and assume I'm reading nonsense but persist, as you say. I use logic, so didn't consider anything else would be assumed! (Though clearly I can not always fully understand or resolve everything_. You make wrong assumptions as you seem to automatically assume others are less intelligent than yourself, and wrong assumptions are at the heart of all wrong science!

2) When I say; "ensure I fully understand and look at different viewpoints..." It is not logical or valid English to respond "there may be other viewpoints"!

3) Again you have misunderstood; "paradoxes are my life blood, as they all have a choice of solutions." It means precisely what you suggested as a COUNTER argument! It means I focus on finding and resolving paradoxes as they always have solutions unseen by the current paradigm.

4) I said I believe even QM will eventually prove logical to us once our understanding reaches the correct level. and you ask "But how do you know what is the correct level?" Again this is logically flawed. It is clear that when it becomes logical it is at the correct level to become logical! You will note I did not say 'correct' as, philosophically, that can never be proved.

5) I did indeed understand your; "frame of reference not connected to your frame." I suspect this may be only semantics, but the whole explanation of frame transition hinges on it, and it is what I referred you have not studied in the DFM, where ALL frames are 'connected'. This seems in may be a logical step beyond all I've seen in your work. It's embodied in your distinguishing between light scattered directly towards you from that scattered at an angle.

Light may travel across many frame boundaries, and 'Stokes' or 'Anti Stokes' scattered at each subject to their vectors, so all are 'connected' but only two can ever be connected 'locally'.

6) I have explained my concept in great detail, and only give Gedankens to assist others. (bus, train, river etc.) I agree ref objects moving in different frames, but do not understand "objects are perceived only during transition", which seems to imply objects at rest in the same frame are not visible!? Please explain. How does your version explain 7c gas jets in plain English.

7) When I write; "The plasma does the precise job our imaginary 'dark matter' does, and in the same places!" The convention of the use of inverted commas in this context around 'dark matter' means I refer to the TERM 'dark matter' as used by others, which means I'm inferring plasma IS dark matter. It's the famous 'Duck' analogy. If it walks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, I don't care if you've always called it a 'Dodo', Whether that's what your community believes or not I shall test the assumption that it may just be a duck!

In general terms I've confirmed we agree on up to 99% of your theory. But then however we diverge. I have studied and compared the two divergent paths. Yours seems quite plausible and interesting, yielding some promising results, but seemingly without falsifiability. I accept I may be wrong as there are parts I don't fully understand.]

However, my path goes on the explain the basis of Equivalence, tying SR into GR with a quantum mechanism, giving full unification. At last count there were also over a dozen paradoxes and anomalies it resolves. All that is lost if I try to use your divergent path. Again I may be wrong, and if you can find consistency I'd be delighted, and our joint model may be powerful enough for a paradigm shift. Unfortunately you seem unwilling to consider any alternatives outside yours and consider any change or development. That's how 'old' science operates. (I don't work that way, my structure has evolved using many specialist components from many fields). I've done the same with Sreenath and found greater potential for compatibility in the later stages, which we're exploring with others.

I say again your work is excellent Basudeba, and much of the core is very consistent with mine. You say; "no one in the scientific community agrees with your views". That may be your view, but if the essay marks can be considered as any indication at least some seem to find some agreement. You should be aware that kind of inappropriate comment along with your misunderstandings cleared up up above is what can put people off support, agreement and collaboration.

If you're prepared to also study my half of our divergence not just your own I will be happy to discuss.

Peter