Discrete and Continuous Realities According to Fundamental Laws of Nature by Rafael Emmanuel Castel

Ray,

I just want to be clear. Although I say "at the fundamental level the image of waves is no longer clear", that is not to mean that 'tangental' vector interactions no longer occur. These interactions still occur, because otherwise there would be no curvature; and without the curvature there would be no torus that define the particulate kinematic construct. These interactions simply occur very quickly at the very short distances and high speeds involved in a black hole.

Rafael

Eugene,

You mentioned that you "have recently noted that the relativistic 'mass increase' can be expressed in terms of the C-field such that the actual mass does not change but the increase in energy occurs in the C-field circulation instead." This is pretty much what I have been saying regarding the genesis process that is described by the relativistic equation from which the 'genesis formula' can be derived upon the application of the gra.

The relativistic equation using the 'full-tensor' factor (3-D cross) presents a yield that is twice the mass-energy increase using the 'half-tensor' Lorentz factor (2-D linear). The Lorentz factor accounts for merely the 2-D linear translation. The 'full-tensor' factor (1-v2/c2)-1 is therefore clearly the right factor because it accounts for the whole 3-D gravitational translation. This factor indicates the full condensation (densification) process.

Regarding the radiation (attenuation) process -- what goes in in terms of energy inputs should logically also be what goes out. The CMBR is considered as the signature of the general cosmic radiation process; it is therefore necessary to account for the energy of the cosmic background radiation in the input-output equation.

Moreover, there is also the idea that a general mass density is maintained in the cosmos in spite of the observed cosmic expansion. This suggests the idea that new cosmic mass is also formed by the gravitational condensation process as clearly suggested by the relativistic equation that uses the 'full-tensor' factor.

These suggest the idea that the total cosmic mass-energy increase may be apportioned for both the cosmic background radiation and the cosmic mass formation -- and this appears to be the case. As I mentioned, the idea of the "half going to the CMBR and half to the mass formation" is supported by the fact that the "energy comprising half of the total increase falls right smack on the energy curve of the cosmic background radiation."

Of course, (1) some gravitational systems may have the mass formation process as well as the increases in energy and (2) other systems may have merely the temporary energy increases that are radiated away when these other systems return to their normal energy state. (This latter may be the "increase in energy" that "occurs in the C-field circulation" as you put it. The C-field may actually explain the variations in the energy states of particles, e.g., such as that of the electron's.)

Thus, the increase in the energy that is radiated away and goes into the CMBR is part of the reason why we have the expansion of the observable cosmos. The other part of why we have the expansion of the observable cosmos is the increase in mass in each of the subsystems of the observable cosmos. The increase in mass increases the orbital momentum of each of the subsystems -- and hence the increase in their orbits. The spiraling of the orbits of the subsystems of the cosmos is essentially the expansion of the cosmos.

The process of cosmic mass-energy increase is evidently because there is the phenomenon of gravitation. But the phenomenon of gravitation occurs because there is the concerted revolutions of all of the cosmic subsystems in an infinitely hierarchical cosmos. No hierarchical cosmos, no gravitation; no gravitation, no cosmos. The "chicken-and-egg" proposition. But it appears that that is inescapably so...

Overall -- yes, debatable. But the new relativistic formulation and the interpretation I've presented indicate continuous genesis and expansion of the cosmos...

Rafael

Eugene,

You said "The equations do work, and I intend to spend more time thinking about the physics of this phenomenon."

Perhaps you might consider visiting this webpage. The discussions on the new relativistic mass equation is not complicated at all; it's even simpler than Einstein's 1905 paper. It would be lovely if you (and the other readers) can give me a feedback regarding the genesis formula.

Rafael

...from which the 'genesis formula' can be derived upon the application of the gravitational acceleration for the acceleration in the change in v2...

Eugene,

The reason why I referred you to my webpage is because I saw that your C-field equations were relativistic and I perceived that somehow some of our ideas 'correlate'.

Compared to what I've read here, your essay presents more of the physics because you describe 'dynamical' and/or 'mechanical' systems that are basically about motion.

I am of what I call the old-school; I think "physics is about motion." When people claim they are talking physics but deal-out confused geometrics and kinematics or simply insist on the geometrics instead of the kinematics, I do not expect coherent explanations of the physics from them -- until of course they clearly admit that their simplices and complexes are descriptions of motions according to the old-school physics.

You've described somewhat the 'composition' and 'decomposition' of motion vectors; you've described what I call 'motion constructs'; and I find it interesting.

You say that "Physics is a discipline that is approximately based on" your "Analog In...Digital Out" diagram. That is also interesting.

The evolution of Physics has certainly brought us again on the verge of the metaphysics when John Archibald Wheeler started what he called the "it from the bit". And all the discussions about "information entropy," "information lost in black holes," "holographic principle," "psychophysical views," and etc., exemplify the present trend.

I think this trend is the logical step from where human generalizations regarding nature started. We've gone through (1) the "earth, wind, water and fire", (2) the classical "laws of motion", (3) the atomic theory and the table of "atomic elements", and now the struggle to identify (4) the table of quantum "fundamental particles." The logical next step, as indicated by the present trend, is to identify how the abstracts (information) are generated. So, your "analog in and digital out" idea is fairly in-keeping with the trend.

My prediction is that we will eventually return to the idea that physics is about motion. And we will eventually have the generalizations regarding how "information" is generated in unison with the "transformations of motion." I of course allude to the psychophysical (the mind and the natural), or, more appropriately, the psychosomatic (the mind and the body). In the end it is all about the physical (the natural), which includes both the physics and the metaphysics (i.e., not that which is beyond the physics, but that which is of the higher physics, the supernatural).

I believe that our physics will never get near the comprehensive idea regarding the whole existence unless our physics will begin to see that it is mainly about the transformations of motion, and that the motion transformations are in unison with the duration transformation and the abstractions of the mind - the phenomena in unison with the noumena.

I have pointed out the idea of motion transformations, as opposed to the idea of space-and-time transformations. I've pointed out that mass and energy are motion constructs. I've also pointed out that the cosmos must necessarily be hierarchical in order to have the gravitational vectors. And I've pointed out that the cosmos has the three-dimensional acceleration according to a relative view of the essence of gravitation; I've derived the genesis formula. And I have put forth my interpretations of the formula according to the idea of motion transformations. Basically, I am saying that there is continuous 'formation' or 'creation' of 'observable' mass-energy into the cosmos from out of the voidness of chaos.

There are people who have proponed the idea of a 'continuous' cosmic mass formation - e.g., Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, Jayant Narlikar, and more recently Garth Barber. However, Their arguments are not as clear without the genesis formula and they have not gone down to the most fundamental level. Whereas, I have identified the fundamentals (i.e., the time dimension, instance, duration, space dimension, substance, motion) and I have pointed out that physics is mainly about the motion transformations.

It is difficult to see how my ideas could get into the mainstream discussions. I do this theoreticals pretty much as a 'sideline' and not as a 'profession' according to the popular counter-intuition (you know, the intuition for where the cash register is). Perhaps this FQXi would be able to get it into the mainstream discussions. But that remains to be seen...

You say: "Physics should never accept anything outside 'time and space', such as: God, a mathematical universe, a multiverse, laws of physics, more than 4 dimensions.

You are quite right in a roundabout way. God must necessarily be in physics (nature); this idea is evidently why the Semitic (of Shem), the Hebrew (Abraham who is of Eber's lineage), and the Judeo-Christian (of Judah and of Christ) traditions claim that God is 'in heaven', and why they are taught to pray to "God, who art in heaven,..." and "God, our Father in heaven,..." Why pray to God in heaven if God is not in heaven? Huh? God must necessarily be part of of nature; He is actually considered supernatural, and in that sense, super natural. Those who tell us that God is beyond the cosmos, beyond the universe, obviously do not tell us the truth according to the holy scriptures and the honest traditions.

As for the "mathematical universe, a multiverse, laws of physics, and more than 4 dimensions" that you negatively mentioned. I gotta say I understand what people mean when they say these things, albeit there is the trouble that they probably do not understand what they mean and do not know how 'what they say' are understood. You and I are not immune to this,.. from certain perspectives.

You say: "Unfortunately, that is asking someone else to do your work for you."

I agree. But it would be fortunate if someone did. LOL. After all, I have pretty much pointed out what appears to be the fruitful avenue (the idea of motion transformations) and, essentially, the grand conclusions (the idea of an infinitely hierarchical cosmos wherein continuous genesis occurs). The math I've put forth looks really simple; but more often the truth can be that simple.

You also say : "I would love to be able to give you more encouragement along these lines, but I just don't see it... Nevertheless, miracles happen, so I wish you the best in this regard."

That is a lovely double-entendre. LOL. But, as you say miracles do happen - perhaps I will have the mental capacity to accommodate whatever this is regarding... LOL.

Rafael

Eugene,

You say: "The physics information that is the basis of the theories is not composed of matter, charge, spin, or motion."

You have Kant in you -- which is good. I too have Kant in me.

I think my merging of the ideas of the corporeal and the abstract brought the confusion. My apologies. But you must have noted, I've forwarded the categorizations into the phenomena and the noumena - information which is abstract belongs to the noumena.

The confusion is in my use of the word "physics" = "nature". In common convention, "nature" often means just the phenomena (i.e., space, substance, motion, the corporeal). But sometimes it is meant to also include the noumena (i.e., time, instance, duration, the abstract).

From www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/420847/noumenon we have:

"Noumenon, plural Noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon -- the thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man's speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to the noumenon. Man, however, is not altogether excluded from the noumenal because practical reason -- i.e., the capacity for acting as a moral agent -- makes no sense unless a noumenal world is postulated in which freedom, God, and immortality abide.

The relationship of noumenon to phenomenon in Kant's philosophy has engaged philosophers for nearly two centuries, and some have judged his passages on these topics to be irreconcilable. Kant's immediate successors in German Idealism in fact rejected the noumenal as having no existence for man's intelligence. Kant, however, felt that he had precluded this rejection by his refutation of Idealism, and he persisted in defending the absolute reality of the noumenal, arguing that the phenomenal world is an expression of power and that the source from which this power comes can only be the noumenal world beyond."

As you may see, Immanuel Kant and Emmanuel Castel have somewhat the same notions regarding "the thing" and "the thing-in-itself".

Your last post makes a lot of things quite clear. Thank you very much.

Good luck to you in the essay contest.

Rafael

Eugene,

I apologized that I didn't know who you were. I just learned.

I don't have any of the books you've written and I haven't read any of your books. But I've had glimpses of the titles of your books and some of the reviews.

I've just been reading some of your other papers.

In your FQXi essay, "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness," you conclude:

"What is ultimately impossible is to explain gravity and consciousness; the essence of G and C (self-attraction, self-awareness, and ability to act) will forever remain mysterious. This defines the ultimate possibility of physics."

My own view is that gravity and consciousness can be explained by describing how these processes proceed and by presenting the fundamental essences as their fundamental cause. It is the fundamental existence (or as you say "the essence") of the fundamental essences that cannot be explained as to their cause and which will forever remain a mystery. The fundamental existence exists and that is that. There is no origin more fundamental than the existence of the fundamental essences. I think even God and all the gods have no idea regarding the origin of the fundamental existence.

Considering what you have done so far, I am wondering why you haven't gotten to (This is of course a presumption.) the fundamental idea of a kinematic field -- the fundamental field of motions -- that encompasses all other fields.

Also, I don't see any articulation in your latest work that shows that you have gotten to the fundamental idea that a vector of motion is the fundamental "intelligence", the fundamental intelligent entity with the input-process-output (IPO) capability. The fundamental motion that can be represented by a vector is the most fundamental form of intelligence.

The essence of fundamental intelligence is in the essence of fundamental motion -- i.e., the fundamental motions are the "inputs", the fundamentally resolving kinematic interaction is the fundamental "process", and the essence of the resolved vector is the fundamental "output".

The chaotic or 'raw' motion in the void is relatively undefined while cosmic or 'organized' motion is defined and observable. And yet there is intelligence in both. I see that the G-field is relatively raw. But the C-field is more organized -- and more 'self-conscious'.

I see that self-conscious intelligence requires the existence of the kinematic construct that essentially cycles onto itself -- especially the particulate kinematic configurations, up to the level of the atomic and molecular configurations and the life-forms we are familiar with.

The suggestion regarding the psychosomatic reality is that the mental abstractions are always in unison with the kinematic interactions. There is no mind without the appropriate embodiment. Every embodiment has the IPO capability. Considering who you are, I am inclined to think that you agree with my IPO definition of the nature of 'intelligence'.

-

I have an impression from the title of your book, "The Atheist and the God Particle" -- although I haven't read it and I don't know if you are an atheist.

I find the belief in God the most logical and rational option -- to me the proof in the words and the numbers make this option the best.

I've derived and interpreted only the genesis formula. I don't have any created particles to back it up. But I have faith in the genesis formula. I find it convincing for myself because it is another supporting evidence that tells me that the superlative ideas regarding 'the creation' are true.

Rafael