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

Dear Eugene,

I said:

[ In comparison, I see an all-encompassing kinematic field, infinite in time and space, comprising a hierarchical (discrete) kinematic 'cosmos' immersed in a smoothly void (analog) kinematic 'chaos'. I see a kinematic field wherein the cosmic subsystems multiply according to a generally continuous cosmic mass-energy formation process.

I assume that the hierarchical cosmos always existed and that its oscillations and many-body plurality ensures that 'true singularities' never occur, such that the cosmos maintains the order that we see. In my proponed view, every kinematic density presents a kinematic bias for the tangental vectors from the kinematic field. So, I have a clear idea where the tangental vectors effect the quantization process. ]

Note that my idea is that the "an all-encompassing kinematic field" already has both the discrete and the analog components, always did and always will. The kinematic field has two components. The infinite analog (chaos) supplies (always did and always will) the raw motions needed for the continually increasing infinite discrete (cosmos) and "the cosmic subsystems multiply according to a generally continuous cosmic mass-energy formation process."

So, yes, I think that the kinematic field that is infinite in time and space IS logical. I find no contradiction since I don't argue the idea that there was an analog part of the field first before there was ever the discrete part of the field. You seem to argue that there was the field first - your word is 'primordial'. My idea is that the universe never "came to be". It has always been here. All we have to discover is how it is the way it has always been and how it 'evolves' and 'grows'.

You say:

[ ... 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. ]

Well, Eugene, I say - it is not always necessary that I do the derivations for us all. We have Dr Klingman for that and other people, too.

I also employ the idea of a particulate 'donut/loopy' kinematic construct. So, I actually believe your C-field applies in my idea of a continually 'reproducing' cosmos. We need only discover in what conditions your C-field is applicable in my kinematic relativity idea.

So, if you want the mechanism that produces all the particles that you say my theory should have, then I say we have your C-field. Unless of course if your C-field is unable to produce all the particles you mentioned -- 'locally' in say a black hole? You need only the continually existing inexhaustible kinematic field to supply the kinematic vectors to the black hole that will transform the motions and spew them out as the particles you listed.

So, what do you think? Can your C-field do it? Of course, you can only answer YES -- otherwise you'd be inconsistent regarding your claims. Please forgive that sly this your friend is...

We obviously have complimentary ideas. I provide you the logical idea regarding how the symmetry is breaking with the tangental vectors applied where they are applicable (since that is what you lack in your theory), and voila, we have it all (or at least a great deal)!

Rafael

P.S. Clearly, there is a lot of baggage that we need to let go of in order to reconcile our ideas... You did have an explanation somewhere in your thread regarding why we can't readily do this...

Eugene,

Just a slight correction, it should read:

"You seem to argue that there was the ANALOG field first - your word is 'primordial'."

-

You say - "You are correct that I begin with a single field. But my only assumption at the beginning is that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE EXISTS." The suggestion is that the universe came to exist only after something happened to the analog field - "quantum conditions carve up the continuum" (you imply) into black holes, galaxies and their components, etc.

I say - "My idea is that the universe never "came to be". It has always been here. All we have to discover is how it is the way it has always been and how it 'evolves' and 'grows'." There is, continually, the genesis of new parts - e.g., new black holes, new galaxies and their grown or multiplied components, etc. - that the already existing and evolving kinematic quantum conditions generate from the kinematic continuum.

This is where we have the big difference in our opinions.

Rafael

Dear Eugene and everyone,

I think I must clarify a little bit more.

When I say that the universe has always been here, what I mean is that an infinite cosmos with the pattern or structure wherein we have the galaxies, the clusters of galaxies, the clusters of clusters of galaxies, and etc., always existed. And I believe the infinite cosmos 'evolves' and 'grows' both in the sense that it 'reproduces' as it feeds on 'raw' energy from an infinite energy reservoir.

The genesis formula that I derived suggests the interpretation that there is continuous cosmic mass formation with the accompanying cosmic energy radiation. This is because of the suggestion that in every center of gravitation (i.e., every mass) in the universe the analog gravitational field/flow is being quantized into discrete cosmic mass-energy.

According to my genesis formula, the quantization process requires seed masses. There is no concentric gravitation without the seed mass.

I view the gravitational field as a continuous (analog) flow or motion towards the mass at the center. And I've applied the principle of the relativity of motion such that I view the mass at the center as accelerating in 3-D with the acceleration a = g.

My derivation of the genesis formula is somewhat similar to Einstein's derivation of his famous formula.

Einstein's concluded that E=mc2 on account of the connection with the classical K.E.=½mv2. His derivation was of linear form because he used the Lorentz factor. But the E=mc2 is non-linear. So, it appears that he jumped to the conclusion that E=mc2, which made all of us admire his deep intuition.

On the other hand, I made my conclusion of a genesis formula because of the suggestions presented by my derivation based on the idea of pure kinematics and the idea of the 3-D relative acceleration of gravitational masses on account of their gravitational field. I used the 'full-tensor' factor in my derivation as you may see in my essay.

I have studied how the genesis formula may be applied to the cosmos as a whole. I think the galaxies facilitate the continuous cosmic mass-formation process with accompanying background energy radiations. I think the grand scale replication process begins at the galactic level - the galaxies replicate themselves by spawning protogalaxies.

The reason why I think this is so is because it appears that the galaxies have the appropriate kinds of seed-masses for the production of the elementary particles. It appears that black holes inhabit the periphery and the centers of the galaxies - appropriately where black holes should be if protogalactic spawning actually occurs.

It appears that the black holes at the centers of galaxies rhythmitically condense their gravitational fields. The 'quantized gravity fields' are then periodically spewed out by the black holes, in their periodic polar jets, as condensed kinematic constructs (particles).

( Eugene, this is why I am interested in your C-field formulation. The resultant energy presented by the genesis formula applied to black holes appears to be sufficient for the energy requirements of mass formation processes that may be described by your C-field. Compared to the "genesis from a big bang" idea, the "genesis from a black hole" idea is also more palatable since black holes are more empirically obvious than the big bang. )

The galaxies feed on the condensed particles spewed out from the black holes. The galaxies grow and, in their due time, eventually spawn protogalaxies with younger black holes at their centers. The suggestion is that this is an established process in the infinite universe.

( Incidentally, the idea of protogalaxies appears to be a valid explanation regarding the peculiar quasars near mature galaxies that the astronomer Halton Arp studied. )

It appears that the increasing 'orbital' momenta of the galaxies because of their increasing masses facilitate the expansion of the universe with the accompanying background radiation from the mass formation process. So, both the expansion of the universe and the CMBR are accounted for in my proposed theory.

It does not appear that gravitational fields eventually get exhausted. Gravitational fields exist for as long as there are particulate masses. So, evidently there is an exhaustible source of 'raw' energy that gets condensed into mass by the facility of the seed masses. The gravitational fields are together the infinite energy reservoir for the continuous cosmic mass-energy genesis.

This whole perspective is based on the idea of kinematic relativity and the idea of the transformations of motion that I propone (instead of the arbitrary transformations of space and time that Einstein proponed).

Although Milne advanced the idea of kinematic relativity, it appears that nobody ever advanced the idea of the transformations of motion that I now propone with emphasis, especially with the genesis formula that I've put forth with my novel interpretations.

I can't say I have sufficiently studied Milne, Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar, Brans-Dicke, Barber, Hawking (who recently presented a cosmology advocating spontaneous creation due to gravity), and others who have put forth the various flavors of cosmic formation and creation ideas. The bits and pieces that I've read about the ideas of these people have encouraged me regarding my idea of motion transformations instead of space-time transformations - because, among other reasons, this superb idea is clearly absent in their proposed theories.

-

Actually, I also begin with "the conception of 'one thing'" so that I can get started with the work of understanding the cosmic complexity. I've recognized a rather simple idea and appreciated its value in the face of the complex. I begin with my idea of 'motion transformations'...

But, although it is indeed beautiful that FQXi encourages the attempts and provides this accessible online venue for the presentation of ideas, I do not know if the FQXi community will foster the examination of this idea and the other ideas derived from this main idea.

As far as I know, the "idea of motion transformations", with the offshoot 'genesis formula' and the interpretation I am presenting, is a novel idea.

I have been trying to impart this idea for around 20 years now. But my letters and papers have all been rejected, primarily because I am so alone with this idea. I've tried the various online fora, but I've been rejected and been called many 'names' so many times.

I am encouraged when I read essays such as Butler's and Petkov's here. But judging from the last rating that downgraded my 8.9 to 8.2, the trend of rejection for whatever reason has not changed much.

I'm not losing hope yet. And I hope FQXi will be a catalyst for at least the appropriate examination of my ideas.

Rafael

Ray,

I'd like to know how you fit the idea of self-similarity at the level of the galaxies. I'd like to know what components you see at that scale and what you don't see and where they should be located 'physically'.

How does your scales look like for the effective local values for the gravitational "constant" that can be 'attached' to the various masses in a galaxy? What do you see in terms of the outputs with the gravity fields as inputs?

Also, it would be nice if you can comment regarding the Jordan frame and the Einstein frame in the light of my genesis formula - I am not sure how they may relate according to the conventions.

Rafael

As I have stated in my essay "the picture of a kinematic universe appears to be the more clearly logical and rational than the space-time universe picture." Kinematic relativity describes a universe of quantized motions. Quantized motions define the mass and energy components of the universe. (And this answers the core question in the essay contest.)

The idea of kinematic relativity is simply the transformations of motion - the dynamics of motion itself. This is in contrast with the idea of spacetime relativity that propones the strange idea of the transformations of spacetime - the dynamics of spacetime, instead of the idea of the transformations of motion within the space dimension and along the time dimension.

The truth in the assertion of kinematic relativity (rather than the assertion of spacetime relativity) may only be understood upon the proper consideration of the fundamental idea of pure kinematics -- the fundamental idea of the motion of motions suggested by the Pythagorean idea and clarified in the fundamental motion transformation equations. But it appears that very few understand the suggestion and the clarification.

Judging from the community ratings, it will really take some doing before the present-day science gets shaken into the realization of the more logical and rational idea.

Rafael