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

Rafael,

I have been so busy trying to read new papers that I failed to notice your comments addressed to me.

I appreciate your remarks. I too, am much a 'Kant'-man. I will try to reply to some of the points that you brought up.

First, my essay makes no stand for or against God, it simply points out that since physicists cannot 'measure' God, in the sense of my first diagram that shows how measurements lead to theories, then God does not belong in physics theories. That is meta-physics.

You say: "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."

You might be surprised at the contents of that book. Don't judge a book by the cover.

Finally, because you base everything on motion, I would like to point out the following: The C-field is the gravity 'analog' of the magnetic field, meaning simply that it is analogous to magnetism in some ways. It is not 'identical' to magnetism, nor is it related to magnetism. The name is a blessing and a curse. For those familiar with magnetism, there are many things that can immediately be understood about the C-field. But the name appears to confuse many people who only hear 'magnetism' and draw the wrong conclusion.

My point is: there is no 'magnetism' without moving charge [or changing electric field] and analogously, there is no C-field without moving mass [or changing gravity field].

So there is no C-field without motion! If one attributes the properties of awareness and free will to the C-field, then this may or may not be what you are speaking of when you discuss "the fundamental idea that a vector of motion is the fundamental 'intelligence'."

You also state: "I see that the G-field is relatively raw. But the C-field is more organized -- and more 'self-conscious'. [and] 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." Rafael, that is not far from my understanding.

Thanks for the comments and clarifications.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Rafael

An exceptional essay, and very valid, even brilliant, conceptual approach to describing how relativity really works. You say "it may be some time before...." my estimate was 2020, but I'm now feeling there may be more intelligent life around than I'd feared. (certainly I now hope you'll agree with 10-10). My view is that if we initially accentuate the consistencies with SR/GR rather than the inconsistencies it may be more palatable. You may be one of the few to understand this, quite simple, transformation video; http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.htm

Or a geometrical key is that Cartesian co-ordinates must be attached to a "body" as Einstein specified, as points and lines are only abstractions, and geometry cannot validly include motion.

You'll also be interested in Robert S's equivalent but entirely apriory proof of a = g.

One of my earlier papers clearly identified where and how physics all went so wrong (although parts can also be traced back to Young); http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

In my expose of the 'One Particle State' an ion does it all, and is effectively a graviton, but more simply than envisaged. It has inertial mass, so also gravity. It hangs around with mates as plasma, in gangs roaming around, of density and excitement proportional to speed through the condensate. (It is the dark matter hampering the search for 'dark matter' at the LHC). When light arrives it slows it all down or speeds it all up to the new LOCAL 'c', so both E and 'c' = f x lambda.

We already know plasma is 99% of the Universe. Space time curvature is diffraction (sorry Arthur E), and if the moon sped up it really would exert more gravity on us! (mass equivalence). Most importantly, the plasma ions act as the boundary to implement your change of 'motion' between discrete inertial 'fields.'

The reason the Troglodytes still rule is that us knights in shining armour who have seen over their heads, only roam as individuals, believing we are few. Things are changing! As Robert says, we must stick together, and protect the child who points out the Kings new clothes were only myth! If we do so all who can think may flock to join us.

Peter

Peter,

Your post is very encouraging. Thank you.

You are right about the need for emphasis on "the consistencies with SR/GR." There is a need to restudy the fundamentals for the better interpretations of SR/GR. I think the new interpretations will be more meaningful and precise once the fundamental premises are clarified.

I like Vesselin Petkov's ideas on the fundamentals that he discusses in his essay.

I've been studying E Eugene Klingman's "GEM and the Constant Speed of Light" - downloaded from his website. I find his ideas and your ideas very interesting. I have reservations regarding certain ideas that still have residuals of the space-time transformations idea. But I think you both understand that I have quite completely embraced the idea of motion transformations.

I am working on a new unified theory. This new theory is based on the idea of kinematic relativity. You'll find me if you google "kinematic relativity".

My unified theory propones the idea of synthesized kinematic discrete fields (quantum particles) 'immersed' in an all-encompassing fundamental kinematic continuum field (a null or void kinematic field). The idea is basically that of the discrete cosmos (the ordered or organized kinematic fields) immersed in the void chaos (the unordered or unorganized kinematic field).

I am still working on the details of the synthesis and stabilization of the quantum particles and also on the details of why gravitation occurs.

I am very interested in Eugene's work because of parallels in our work. I still do not see how his formulations could output the values that I expect for the 'three-dimensional' motion transformation process. But the picture of kinematic 'donuts' along C-field cylinders that I see from his work agrees with some of my ideas.

My unified theory requires that half of the energy drawn from the fundamental kinematic continuum gets radiated for the CMBR and half gets stabilized as the quantum particles that compose the 'many-body' components of the cosmos.

I've used a = g and assumed MKS in my formulations; and I found that the half of the total energy increase is consistent with the CMBR curve. I expect that the total cosmic mass-energy increases will be consistent with the rate of cosmic expansion.

Yes, perhaps we'll have better than your 2020 estimate. Any place in the essay contest for each of us should improve the prospects. I hope I get your vote, too.

Rafael

Ray with my actual state(economic, social,health) ,I go now if I have a concrete proposition,I just need quiet a little ,It's nice in all case for your farm,never I will forget that and an other thing that only you knows,don't forget Ray if I live several years still, I will help you or always I will be there for all things,.when this center will be created, there will be a place for you,you know it's an international center and not my center, it's the ideas of several which become relevant, alone we are nothing Ray, without parano of course,I am parano, and tired Ray, I am blocked here in Belgium and the actual systems are a pure joke, I become really crazzy, I rest for my mother who is very tired also.Ican't even create a society.I destroy my health in my own home ,isolated with my theory as my last chance, it's all my life DrCosmic Ray,I become crazzy, I think I am going to go as that, with my guitar if that continues, really, I don't know where, I have no monney, Nothing. I am going to go in India, I don't know, I have no solutions frankly at this momment.I hesitate between USA and India and Africa in fact, in fact I d like create it here but it's difficult with the politicians.I just want continue to learn and improve my theory with friends and good people,universal and humanistic.I d like learn still and still ,it's the only thing who is important for me, continue to learn.I need to learn more, I am frustrated there really.I d like test also my inventions and models with a beautiful team.Imagine Ray a big ecosystem, improved and the center in the middle encercled by the matters, vegetals.....you imagine this sciences center, we shall produce so many things for the well of humanity, the scientists must act together Ray, the hour is serious.Really.

Regards,thanking you

Steve

Dear Steve,

Patience is a difficult lesson. Your heart is in the right place - perhaps you are being tempered by these physical and emotional trials. I pray that you emerge as a better man - much like Jacob/ Israel who wrestled with God all night long, and emerged a better (but with an injured hip) person in Genesis 32.

Do not give up hope. Hope is what keeps us moving forward in difficult times.

May God Bless You!

Rafael

You certainly do. But please explain MKS. I think our work is closely parallel. I also think if you understand mine properly and just pick a couple of key bits to share from it yours will suddenly all prove empirically falsifiable. I have already done that to an extent with yours by focussing on the a = g aspect, which had emerged via the mechanism but was lying to one side. I hope we can enrich each others work.

If you have time to read it carefully please tell me if you can get your head round the logical derivation f unified SR GR an QM from the explanation in my essay.

Best wishes

peter

God bless you also, Dr Cosmic Ray, you shall see that will go, when people works together in complementarity, it's incredible this potential of unification. I am going to try to have a kind of help here in Belgium for the society, but with my bankrupcy,and with my lack of knowledges in economy , gestion and administration and management,I think I am going to make still errors but it's the life. What a world dear Ray what a world.Sometimes the system blocks instead of helping,it's probably due to a bad governance or a lack of skillings of the administrative systems, I don't know.In all case , for having a help of the country, really it's bizare.Tired .

Ps I pray all days for others and never for me, you know, the faith is personal and universal, we can't cheat with this universal sphere, this universe,created in optimization has an aim.....we were we are we shall be Ray,we can't cheat with this immensity, physical and this eternity behind.As humble starwalkers, catalyzers of complemetarity and universality. This Earth Ray doesn't turn correctly and the real responsability of a universal scientist is to find the best solutions for our global Earth, at this momment, the exponentials are there. The governments of all countries must take a global decision of imrpovement of our ecostsems.Quickly ,very quickly.The governance is not a play of business but is a real universal responsability.The ministers, the governors, the presidents, the kings, must be UNIVERSAL and must act together localy and globally.The main priority is the increase of vegetal mass and the restabilization of soils by composting at big scale.If not the future is not possible simply.At this momment at my knowledge we live on only 1 planet.

Take care brother human aka Dr Cosmic Ray.It will be cool if this year, you win,even If I don't agree , you know it, with all your extrapolations of maverick.Hihhihi but it will be cool for you,

ps Have you thought an idea for having the correct number of planets, stars,lmoons,BH, superBH.. ...spheres in our universe,without the quantum spheres.only the cosmological spheres...

Regards

Steve

Dear Rafael,

I apologize for using your thread to respond to my friend Ray, but it is the scene of the crime and therefore appropriate:

Dear Ray,

I am finding it difficult to read all 170 or so essays and the thousand or more comments, so it took me a while to become aware of your 'drive by shooting' in which you state the following:

"And if you use the electron rest mass of 9.11x10^(-31) kg as your "dipstick", then your energy increase is 4x10^(-51), which is a reasonable coupling factor (~10^-10 because Earth's gravitational field is relatively weak) times the inverse of Dirac's Large Number of 10^-41, and is in no way related to the inverse of Klingman's large number of 10^-61 (which would require an unreasonably large non-linear coupling factor of 10^10 in Earth's weak gravitational field).

Sorry, Ed - I like you, but I think you missed the mark with 10^61. Rather than (10^61)^(-2) ~ 10^(-123), it should be (10^41)^(-3) ~ 10^(-123). I think that this correction eliminates some of your declared agreement with experimental data, but it does not destroy your fundamental GEM-like idea."

Well Ray, I like you to, and you're right, it doesn't destroy my GEM idea, but it is significant. Over four years ago I worked out the FLRW equations of Einstein's relativity including the energy density of the C-field and showed that the C-field appears exactly in the same place and manner as Einstein's cosmological constant. Since I had already shown that the C-field produces the "dark energy-like" inflationary effects and that it would produce the correct behavior for half dozen mysteries currently summarized under the rubric 'fly-by' mysteries, ranging from Pioneer data to planetary orbits to the 'flat rotation curves' of stars and galaxies. I published these explanations in "The Gene Man Theory" and derived the FLRW equation in "Gene Man's World" and filed the relevant copies with the Copyright office to be sure that my explanation (the first, other than MOND) was recorded and dated.

But I did not have the actual numbers until about one week before I submitted my essay, when on Nov 19 Grumiller published his results in Phys Rev Letters. Although I had essentially finished my essay, I rewrote it in order to be able to include half a page on this important data (page 8 in my essay.)

This is some of the most important supporting data for my theory, so I cannot let you trash it without response.

Ray, Maxwell taught us that the energy of a field is proportional to the square of the field amplitude. So when I am given a value for the energy of the field, I compute the amplitude by taking the square root, NOT the CUBE ROOT. This then gives me the value that is used for the accelerations, and I find EXACTLY the correct value and range of values, based on my GEM equations. That is significant. You complain that this is a large value for the earth's gravity, and my whole point, based on Tajmar's data and my calculations is that the C-field is much stronger than Maxwell and Einstein believed based on simple symmetry considerations. That's an argument for me, not against me.

Now because you have some numerological ideas, based on Dirac's large numbers (which I'm sure was simply speculation, since I don't believe Dirac actually practiced numerology) you claim that I should be taking the cube root to obtain the number you want instead of the actual number that I do get that is physically well reasoned and matches ALL of the 'fly-by' data. You are simply mistaken, and have no physics on your side, only numerology.

Should you feel compelled elsewhere to attack one of my major results that agrees with reality, please drop me a line alerting me so I can respond appropriately.

Your friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Ed,

I didn't intend for it to sound like a "drive by shooting". Rafael said "P.S. I wonder what the others might say about the above - especially Butler, Klingman, Petkov, Biermans and Benedict..." and I thought that my comment "fit" in the conversation.

Yes - Energy is proportinal to the square of the Amplitude.

Dirac wrote at least a couple of papers about his Large Number "Numerology" Cosmology. It has been a while since I read either, but I think that his argument has about as much basis as does Dark Energy. Dirac's first approach at a Cosmology based on his Large Number didn't exactly pan out, but Dirac didn't know that Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" was ~10^-123 which is the inverse cube of Dirac's Large Number ~10^41. I attribute this coincidence to the geometry of 3 spatial dimensions, rather than the square of an amplitude. Maybe my interpretation is wrong, maybe your interpretation is wrong, maybe the truth is a combination of effects that we have both modelled incorrectly. As you know, I have a completely different interpretation of "Dark Energy" with the Variable Coupling Theory in my book.

I am not opposed to a "C" field (I am convinced that other fields must exist, and that gravity must be more complex), but I suspect that it is very weak in this scale, and is therefore, most important at a larger scale. Unfortunately this implies a Multiverse, and I understand your objections against including God or a Multiverse in our Physics. If I am allowed to explain one point in terms of God or a Multiverse, then I can probably explain all points using similar arguments.

I don't claim to be a prophet who knows all of the answers, but I think that this part of our ideas is at conflict.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray,

Thanks for responding here and on my thread.

You say: "I attribute this coincidence to the geometry of 3 spatial dimensions, rather than the square of an amplitude."

I interpret this to mean "three degrees of freedom". For example Boltzmann's constant is multiplied by 3 for three degrees of freedom:

1/2 mv^2 = (3/2)kT

This is quite different from assuming that 3 spatial dimensions implies a cube root.

Is this what you're saying?

And Ray, the "drive by shooting" was tongue in cheek. I am not upset that you posted a remark where you considered it appropriate at the time, but I would like to have a 'heads up' so I can respond. I do think this 'Fly-by' physics is important validation as I derived the physics long before I had the measured values to compare to.

Of course either of our interpretations may be wrong.

Having fun!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Rafael,

Thanks for studying my essay sufficiently to ask good questions. I'll attempt to answer them.

We seem to have no disagreements upon the relevance of 'local mass density', which, by the way, General Relativity cannot deal with.

You are correct that I begin with a single field. But my only assumption at the beginning is that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE EXISTS.

Now, if that is true, and if my goal is do 'derive physics', then I would like to find some relevant equation, since that is the way physics is 'done'. And, in particular, I would hope to find some 'operator equation' [for the same reason]. But if there is nothing else at all, then the only possible meaning of 'operation' on the field is 'interaction' with the field, and the only possible interaction is 'self-interaction', since nothing but 'self' exists. This can FORMALLY be written as: OPR op Phi = Phi op Phi, which becomes my Master equation. OPR and Phi are UNDEFINED, with the exception that Phi is the 'primordial field'.

But physics requires 'data' and 'facts' and Maxwell and Einstein taught that fields have energy and energy has mass, and with these I can make simple conjectures and see what happens. What happens is that I can almost immediately derive the FORM of Newton's equation from my Master equation.

This SUGGESTS that OPR is the 'directional derivative' or 'tangent vector' and that Phi is the gravity field, G. So we try that interpretation. With these interpretations I can now SOLVE the Master equation (NOT Newton's equation) and I find perfect radial symmetry AND scale invariance.

So how do we 'evolve' from a perfectly radially symmetric field that is 'motion invariant' (implied by 'scale invariance')?

We need to break symmetry. Somewhere else in these comments, last week, I agreed with another author that "why there was a big bang" is the same type of question as "why did symmetry break?", that is, there's no point in going there.

Yes, I agree with you that "it's not logical". But you seem to think that a field that begins as "infinite in time and space" IS logical. I don't think logic has much to do with how our universe came to be. But, once it's here, I do pretty much believe in Marcel's "Principle of logical non-contradiction". That is, I don't think the physical universe sustains contradictions.

Now you might say that, in that case, either choice is equal, and you would probably be logically correct. But in favor of my model is the fact that the C-field (existing after symmetry breaks) explains inflation, and, even more important, the C-field provides (given the energies of the big bang) a mechanism that produces left-handed massive neutrinos, electrons, up and down quarks, their anti-particles, the W, Z, and gamma bosons,and NO HIGGS. In other words ALL of the known particles, including three generations.

If you can derive all of this from your (infinite in time and space) field, and explain current anomalies of physics, then I would be very interested in how you do it, otherwise I don't think you have the complete solution that is required to explain today's world.

It may feel 'logical and rational' to you, but it's got to account for everything physical before it's sufficient.

You say: "I thought it was enough to answer the question regarding what realities are discrete and what realities are continuous. I thought it was enough to explain a unification of relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics..."

The fqxi contest does ask for 'analog vs digital' essays, and there are plenty, but if you want to supplant all other theories you have to provide more.

Edwin Eugene Klingman