A Physicist\'s View of the Universe: A Philosophical Approach by Israel Omar Perez

Dear Sir,

We totally agree with your views. The velocity of light is not constant as it varies depending upon the density of the medium. Since space is not empty, it has variable densities at different localities. Thus c cannot be a constant.

Regarding your other observations, we can only say that we are more concerned regarding misuse of knowledge that propagation of knowledge. Imagine what will happen if the terrorists get the knowledge of advanced technologies in the field of missile development and atomic bombs. It is better for the world not to know these secrets than to know and then get destroyed.

Regarding your last observation, we rest for the time being. The book which we have forwarded to you contains only definitions. Our next book, when published, will deal with these questions elaborately. Incidentally, we have commented on relativity in the post of Rafael Emmanuel Castel (Discete and Continous realities according to fundamental laws of nature). You may like to go through it.

Regards,

Basudeba.

Hi Rodney and Israel,

Me also I think that time travel is so "pseudo sciences".Dear Rodney, you imagine a transfert of mass between two points of space time,it's purely not possible considering the entropy and the evolution.

You know the strings are falses and the hyperdimensions also.The real secret is far of us but we appraoch all days.In fact it's the energy the real secret and the motion,it's thus more rational to focus on the check of space between two points, here spheres for example as our planets.The contraction of this space more the rotations more a good speed and we can discover our Universe in evolution, but the time is just a constant of this evolution, harmonious and precise.PURELLY IRREVERSIBLE .

Now dear Rodney if you can convince us, let's go but I must admit you that it will be difficult.The rationalism is essential for all good extrapolations.

Best Regads

Steve

According to the Community Ratings, my essay in the 2011 Essay Contest is sliding further down the ratings each day. But I'm having more luck with a science journal called General Science Journal - comments of mine inspired by the essay (which are nearly 20,000 words long and include comments about "The Nature of Time" as well as "Is Reality Digital or Analog?") were published in the Journal on Feb. 6 and may be viewed at http://gsjournal.net/ntham/bartlett.pdf

Dear Sir,

Similarities in integrity, thought and preferences makes friends. We share it all. Thus, we are destined to be friends.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Mr. Barkat Ram,

We thank you for raised a very important point that is befitting the Foundational Questions Institute Forum. Most scientists running after name and fame and the benefits of Office ignore foundational questions and run after patch work. For example, though there are various interpretations of quantum physics that sometimes contradict each other, most quote general quantum theory without naming the specific interpretation and resolving the differences with other interpretations, but drawing from different theories what suits them to justify their view. Ultimately they end up in some conjecture like the flowers of the sky. They discuss everything about it such as structure, texture and smell etc. without proving its existence, but only assuring that one day it will be found. So we have big projects like LHC at public expenses with which the scientists can make merry.

We recommend you to read our essay and our comments here in earlier posts in answer to Mr.Perez and those of Mr. Buehlman, Mr. Akerlund, Mr. Biermans, Mr. Castel, Mr. Granel, etc.

Regards,

basudeba.

Hi dear Rodney,

Don't stop,never, you are creative.You just need to improve a little your foundamentals.I wan't discourage you.But I think it's important to show you the road of rationalism.The mass, the light, the time have their properties and they are universal you know.

ps the higgs has an external cause of mass, that's why they are probably and with a big probability false,because our fractal of mass is newtonian and purely irreversible.The cause of mass is intrinsic in all gravitational systems which evolve furthermore.

Best Regards

Steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks a lot for your kind words and encouragement. I won't stop ... not ever! I often want to, because I don't enjoy controversy at all. But I always end up finding another place where I want to promote my ideas. I guess human nature makes it impossible to give up when a person has no doubt he or she is on the right track.

Sometimes, what science accepts as fundamentals have to change. People once had a fundamental belief that the world was flat - and that space and time were absolutes which could never vary - and that traveling to the moon was simply fantasy. All those fundamental beliefs changed though, understandably, not without a fight (change is never easy). Now it's time for some more fundamental beliefs - both public and scientific - to change.

I hope Israel will forgive us for taking over his page sometimes. It might be a good idea to post any more of our comments on the page for my essay ("Steps Resulting From Digital Reality" -

Please visit my FQXi page

Dear Sir,

We cannot understand why scientists have to resort to weirdness to explain physical phenomena. Confinement and Entanglement are not quantum phenomena alone, but they have macro examples also. Superposition of states arises out of the mechanism of measurement, which has been sensationalized by imputing imaginary characteristics to it.

As we have explained in our essay, every particle in the Universe is ever moving with respect to something or the other. Measurement is conducted at a designated instant called "here-now" and the result of that measurement is used at subsequent times, when the particle no longer retains those characteristics, but has temporally evolved. Thus, only its state at the said instant can be known with certainty. It's true state before and after measurement, which is not a single state, but an ever changing state, cannot be known. This unknown state, which is a composite of all possible states, is known as the superposition of states.

When two objects retain their original relationship after being physically separated, such relationship is called entanglement. Suppose someone while traveling forgot to take one of the pair of socks. The individual sock of the pair is complementary to the other. They cannot be used in isolation. If someone asks, 'which of the pairs has gone with the traveler', the answer will be unknown till someone at either end finds out by physical verification. This is a macro example of entanglement. Before the verification (measurement) was done; which one went out was not known. It could have been either one (superposition of all states). After measurement the answer is conclusively known (wave function collapses). There is no need to unnecessarily sensationalize it. The quantum entanglement can be easily explained if we examine the nature of confinement and the measure the distance up to which entanglement shows up (generally, it is not infinite, but lasts up to a maximum of a few kilo meters only).

Not only quarks, but also all particles are confined. LHC has surprised physicists / cosmologists that the early universe was a 'perfect fluid' and not an 'explosion of gases' that is the basis of all current theories. Particles are nothing but confined fluids; that is described as the primordial field. The mechanism by which this fluid is confined will be discussed separately (using simple verifiable models and without Higg's mechanism). Just like only the atoms (molecules) and their combinations exhibit definite chemical properties, only quarks are the first particles to exhibit this property of confinement. Hence if we try to break their confinement, the applied energy leads to formation of other quarks not due to uncertainty principle, but due to simple mechanism of inertia of motion and inertia of restoration (elasticity). Even within the confinement, the up quarks change to down quarks and vice versa. This property is exhibited by all particles. For every micro particle there are macro equivalents. For example, Jupiter is the macro equivalent of proton.

Confinement requires a central stable point around which the mass (confined field) accumulates and the external limit of the confinement which gives rise to the stabilized orbits. There is space between these two positions. This gives a three fold structure. Since inside the particle, it is all fluid or locally confined fluid (sub-systems), it is unstable. If some force is applied to move a smaller portion of the fluid, it generates an equal force in the opposite direction. This is exhibited as the charge of the particle. Where this force interacts with other forces, it may become non-linear. Otherwise, it behaves linearly. The linear behavior is known as quantum entanglement. Electrons and photons are special cases of this confined fluid.

Regarding Relativity, we have proved in other posts that it is a wrong description of facts and that Einstein's mathematics is wrong. Since it is very lengthy, we are not reproducing it here. Those interested may read our post below the essay of Mr. Castel and Mr. Granet.

Regards,

basudeba

Hi to both of you,

I thank you dear Basudeba, I just received your book yesterday, apparently 15 days were necessary for the travel India-Belgium.It's nice in all case.I thank you still.It's cool to have friends from all over the world.

I find your book very intersting and relevant.I see you use the word sphere, I am happy to see people focus on my theory of spherization or have some convergences, spherical.I like also the omnipresence and omnipotence.

Best regards and good luck in this contest to both of you

Steve

Dear Israel,

As to the 'epistemological coherence' of your essay, a real consistent view exposes string theory to be the product of some fundamental misconceptions. If the universe creates itself without any outside intervention, then particles have to create themselves, each other. The consequence is that fundamental particles then are as much the source as the product of their interactions. Since they obviously need to acquire some kind of backbone to prevent their properties to vary continuously as the circumstances vary, their properties, energy, the energy interval within which they are stable, must be quantified. If particles are as much the source as the product of their interactions, then so is the force between them, so a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive. This means that though particles, within the conditions they are stable, may act as if they either attract or repulse, as their energy also is the product of their interactions, they have no absolute charge or mass which can give rise to infinite interaction energies at infinitesimal distances, so there's no need for string theory. Since the mass of particles similarly is the cause as well as the effect of their interactions, of their energy exchange, we need no Higgs particles either. A universe which finds a way to create itself, can hardly stop creating: it is this continuous creation process which gives rise to the observation that masses contract, the effect of which is that spacetime between the mass concentrations expands. For details see my thread 838.

Regards, Anton

Israel,

Sorry not to have replied earlier. I'm not sure how i missed your response. I think we are largely in agree ment that Big Bang theory is a serious mistake, growing from that assumption that space and time have physical properties which would allow them to be shaped. I go into a possible explanation for how light might otherwise be redshifted in my essay.

One of the various arguments I do use against Big Bang proponents is that the idea of space expanding from the singularity is belied by the fact that the speed of light is stable. In other words, while the metric defined by the redshift is presumably expanding, the metric defined by lightspeed is not. So if it's an expansion within a stable metric of space, we would have to be at the center of the universe for it to appear as it does.

Dear Israel,

You write: ---If the universe or the particles create themselves out of nothing they are violating the conservation of energy. This is not allowed even by the principle of Heisenberg."---

My point (see my essay) is that since the energy of a photon in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next, there's no law violated as energy is created out of nothing. In the 2-split experiment, no energy is liberated as two photons annihilate, nor has their source lost any energy by emitting them. As positive as it is negative, energy doesn't have to obey conservation laws (which is why it can create itself out of nothing in the first place): it is the expression of all such laws, their enforcer.

The uncertainty principle, in the form dE . dt = 1, shows that energy and time create, define each other, so an energy quantum creates itself the time necessary to exist, to manifest itself. In other words, there's no authority outside/before the universe who's looking on his/her/its watch to monitor whether something pops up which might violate conservation laws: the universe doesn't exist IN time, but produces time itself.

Regards, Anton