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

Congratulations, Dr. Jackson, if I am refernencing the proper website. It would seem that silent threads are not rewarded, much, after all (a.k.a. Justice).

Thanx

Hi Peter,

Again my congratulations, but you deserved a first place (nothing wrong of course with Danielle Oriti) because of the innovative compromising science.

I also think that when even number one has a score of only 5.4 out of ten this means that the total result of the contest is even less as everage in vieuw of the participants, and that my friend is strange when you see all the positive posts on the forums, perhaps the maximum to give was a 6 and the minimum a 0, then everything again is in equilibrium.

Hope we can continue our contact.

Wilhelmus

Dear Peter,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top ten placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the top front runners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

Dear Peter,

In my thread 833 you wrote for example: "Only our poor understanding and self centric thinking allowed Lorentz to ignore the correct Fresnel/Stokes/Plank solution when Stokes died and hijack Fresnel's formula to invent the LT."

I highly appreciate your courage to address recent experimental results that apparently contradict theories. However, I do not consider your imprecise style appropriate for a top ten essay writer.

Did my and your poor understanding and self centric thinking really allow Lorentz to do something?

Is "the correct Fresnel/Stokes/Planck solution" a well established term which is understandable to everybody without explanation? Hopefully you will not take it amiss that I corrected Planck. Can you please reveal what paper by Planck you refer to?

I was not familiar with the word hijack because it seems to rarely occur in scientific literature.

Didn't the name Lorentz transformation go back not to Lorentz himself but to Poincaré? How relate e.g. Woldemar Voigt and FitzGerald to Fresnel's formula?

At least it looks as if you are convinced that the LT (Lorentz transformation) is wrong, but you do not consider this worth any further scrutiny. You just do not need LT as to nonetheless also arrive at Einstein's SR. Right?

Hence you persistently ignored my repetitious hints to Van Flandern. Right?

Eckard

Dear Eckard

Thanks. I was trying to keep it rather too short! which unavoidably precludes full precision. In English we commonly use the extended 'Royal 'we'. Her Maj uses it instead of 'I', but we can only do the opposite, referring to the plural right up to 'Humankind', to save blaming it on 'them'. So it was 'us lot on planet Earth' I referred to. And yes, if you read the paper and consider the DFM's non-absolute frame solution, it becomes clear it was only due to 'self centric' thinking that Lorentz felt the LT was needed.

I rather thought Stokes famous 'full ether drag' was common knowledge, (referred by me and also in last years essay), as were his supporters, which also included Heaviside and others. I have no issue with your correction of that part of Plancks' work you corrected, but you are here guilty of the same fault you accuse me of, not detailing your correction! But I do forgive you as your memory may not be quite as good(ish!) as mine.

The details of Planck's discourse with Lorentz are interesting in themselves. Here is a derived extract from http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022; "Contrary to some opinion (Lorentz) had accepted that the Fresnel/Stokes etc. 'Full Ether Drag' option complied with M&M. His objection was that flow over a sphere is uneven and would not be zero at it's surface. Max Planck supported Stokes thesis and suggested compressible ether, more dense at the surface. Lorentz responded; "..this assumption of an enormously condensed ether, combined, as it must be, with the hypothesis that the velocity of light is not in the least altered by it, is not very satisfactory."

Poincare, yes indeed, but the equation was originally derived long before by Fresnel, I believe when originally considering the lack of backwave in Huygens Construction, to become the Huygens-Fresnel Principle, but used for another more valid purpose, also considered in Larmors mooted relativistic frame transformation, nailed to Fitzgeralds Irish maths, to create the LT. But no history of course is anywhere near complete even if we write 1000 books!

I have made it clear the DFM shows the LT as superfluous (wrong) Eckard, though the formula (not belonging to Lorentz) has other uses. However, it's imprecise to say 'arrive at Einsteins' SR' as, if you understand my thesis, you'd recall that while it arrives at Einstens SR 'Postulates', the DFM makes a small adjustment to an 'assumption' which gives give it a working Quantum Mechanism. (Unification).

I know Tom Van F's work quite well, but I don't think your 'imprecise comment here is appropriate for a top 10 essay writer', (just joking Eckard!) You didn't say about which of Tom's many theories and papers you 'hinted'. Please pass me the specific reference, as I have to you a number of times, and I'll respond in full.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Tom,

Thank you for so many words of reply. Perhaps you mistook me. I referred to your typo Plank, I did not correct Planck's work.

Let me omit the history and focus on the central question that puzzles me:

Is the Lorentz transformation as formulated by Poincaré a correct basis of Einstein's special theory of relativity and the subsequent Minkowski metric?

Because I am not a physicist I looked into the textbook "The Special Theory of Relativity" by Bohm. It tries to tell that the twin paradox is no paradox at all.

Also looking into Einstein's 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik ..." I am ready to agree with the postulates but not with his (Poincaré's) return method of synchronization, which seem to me corresponding to a paradoxical dependency on (v/c)^2.

In his 2005 paper "Is faster-than light propagation ..." Van Flandern revives what he calls Lorentz relativity (LR), the opinion by Lorentz himself, de Sitter, Sagnac, Michelson, Ives, Tangherlini, Mansouri & Sexl, Beckmann, Hayden, Hatch, and Selleri.

Already in his 2003 paper "Lorentz Contraction" Van Flandern explained convincingly to me the time desynchronization.

I reiterate my question again: Are the results of the lunar laser experiment agreeable with the opinion of the late Van Flandern?

What do you consider wrong: LT including Lorentz contraction, LR, both, or none of them?

Regards,

Eckard

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!