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

Rafael,

My response above was to the immediately preceding comment. After posting I noticed your longer comment before that. But basically, nothing changes. Of course black holes should contain sufficient energy for the C-field to produce particles, but that doesn't explain how the black holes got here without particles. So there's a circularity of logic that I find unappealing.

It's hard to separate our philosophical positions from our physical theories, and philosophically I am devoted to a 'unitary' conception that requires me to begin with 'one thing', not 'the ten thousand things' as the Zen Buddhists say.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Rafael,

I left most of this on my blog site, but added a p.s. for yours:

Laurent Nottale predicts at least one scale of greater complexergy than ours. My analysis of fundamental particle spins (including spin-3/2 gravitinos and spin-2 gravitons) leads me to think that there may be at least two sclaes of greater complexergy than ours.

Within our Observable Universe, there is some interesting structure, such as Superclusters. Are Superclusters part of our Classical Scale, or are they part of a larger scale that we can observe (just like the Quantum scale is a smaller scale that we can observe)? I haven't given this possible scale-level as much thought as it probably deserves, but my friend Len Malinowski has. Max Tegmark is working along similar lines.

At the top scale, we have the Multiverse. It is (near?) infinite in space and time, always has existed, always will exist, and each Observable Universe is a fragment of fractal dust within its composition. Perhaps this fits into Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation, but the "many-worlds" have always existed - we don't need new Big Bangs to provide those alternate worlds/ realities/ possibilities.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

p.s. - This paper addresses some of these scale ideas. See Equation 5 and Table 3. Regarding scales, think of Dr. Seuss' "Horton Hears a Who!"

Rafael

I agree my SR and GR from a Quantum Mechanism does't follow the 'conventional' understanding of SR/GR. In fact all 3 are slightly refurbished.

As an Architect I don't have the luxury (for long) of settling for maybe's. I have to use intense conceptualisation and logical analysis, then design, test and finally detail and specify something from foundations up to actually build. A real, man made environment. So that's what I've done.

You say; "I have my own interpretations of the SR, GR and QM ideas. I've winnowed out a lot from these ideas and have come up with the idea of kinematic relativity which is centered on the idea of the transformations of motion."

and; "The idea of kinematic relativity allows a unification of relevant SR, GR and QM ideas in terms of the transformations of motion. My genesis formula describes a KR process that involves the gravitation process and a bit of the quantum process."

However, I have not yet given a clear description of the general quantum process based on the KR principles. But I am on the idea that an hierarchical cosmos is necessary for both the quantum and the gravitational processes, and such that I can see the unification in the idea of kinematic relativity."

OK. Here is a quantum process to test. I've actually built stuff from it so know it works; Particles condense from the (limited compressibility) condensate around (the em field of) things that move. These have the jobs of;

1. Relieving the condensate (Edwins) of it's locally compressed (dark) energy.

2. Oscillating, so it (kinematically) keeps em wave speed at the new local 'c' via wave particle interaction (Stokes scattering).

3. Slowing and bending the light (diffraction) in accordance with the lighthouse keepers instructions (Fresnels 'n'), via scattering/ PMD /Regaza delay.

4. Playing at being 'mass' (well it actually is), for the purposes of gravity and equivalence (with inertial mass).

5. Getting together to make people, sunshine and environments.

It defines the limits and boundary zones of 'inertial frames', which are just as Einstein described them. (but the Lorentz transformation curve (actually originally Fresnels)is essentially only about energy requirement for acceleration).

Conceptually this overcomes the whole reason for SR in the first place by allowing constant speed of light for all observers without banishing fields.

I agree you are in a similar place, along with Edwin and a number of others, and we should all get Nobel prizes (can you pick up mine while you're there) and be sent to asylums for our stupidity in running the gauntlet of calls of crackpot and finger pointing. That Japanese 'pain game' show would be fun wouldn't it!

I've just realised I hadn't rated yours! one well deserved 10 coming up sir. (do check you gave me what you think mine's worth).

Very best wishes

Peter

Pete,

I already did a while back. Must be why you, Eugene and Ray, among others, are high up in the community ratings. :)

Rafael

Rafael

Thanks. It's interesting that if motion is compressed for quantisation then it's conceptually a type of shortfall of motion around the quanta that implements the gravitational 'force'. I wonder if the condensate is colder near matter?

You may enjoy and support Constantinos Regaza consistent essay, (if you haven't yet) using maths in the way I feel it should be used (having abandoned it myself!) with logic to retain it's link with reality.

Peter

Pete,

You say: "It's interesting that if motion is compressed for quantisation then it's conceptually a type of shortfall of motion around the quanta that implements the gravitational 'force'. I wonder if the condensate is colder near matter?"

I think your question was debated upon by leading theorists sometime back in terms of the thermodynamics of black holes - at the black hole event horizon specifically. Heat is related to the random, expansive motion of particles (the so-called Brownian motion, the motion of particles). My understanding is that it is the expansive motion of the particles that gives the sensation of heat. If a black hole is a single particulate motion construct and its effects on particles at the horizon is concentric (not expansive), then a black hole may be as cold as it gets - except perhaps at the poles where the motions are expansive and where the 'common' quantum particles are likely formed - I think this is the reason why there are the observed polar jets.

Yes. It can be viewed as "conceptually a type of shortfall of motion around the quanta that implements the gravitational 'force'." I actually thought about gravitation merely this way before because the em linear translation is shorter than the rotational translation with the indefinite value of pi - thus, motion gets stretched and creates a vacuum when rotated. However, from the viewpoint of pure kineamtics, the process of gravitation involves more than just this 'shortfall' - and this has actually brought me to my conclusion that there has got to be a hierarchical cosmos in order for the process of gravitation to occur.

Rafael

Pete,

The polar jets appear to be intermitent/periodic. So, the thermodynamics should also be rhythmic. It gets hot when the black hole spits em wave and particle radiations. This is to the outside observers of course.

I am not sure if observers gone inside feel the heat once inside, since it looks like the motion constructs that used to be the intelligent observers actually get shredded and melted into the black hole. It looks like there is no way we can know about the fate of any intelligent observer gone in - notwithstanding the suggestion of info that may possibly get out of the black hole on account of the particles (formed out of the motions that went in) that get spewed out by the black hole. The new particles formed and spewed out appear to be clean slates in terms of historical info - except for the fact that the new particles are made out of the motion constructs gone into the black hole and therein shredded.

Rafael

Dear Mister Rafael Castel- Having read your essay I have decided to send you a copy of one of my works: ELECTRON BALLISTICS. You might enjoy the sections where I consider electron motion in an electric and a magnetic field (Kaufmann's particle accelerator). And make an effort to map the motion with the application of the parabola and the cycloid. Have you given any thought to cycloidal motion? Good Luck In The Contest! Joel Mayer, author: Is Reality Digital or Analog?

Dear Joel,

Thanks. I will read that copy.

Your contest essay is interesting.

As for the cycloidal motion, yup. But I've focused on the toroidal, owing to the 3D considerations...

Rafael

Eugene,

Thank you also for the support.

I have been most impressed by your C-field idea. I think your C-field idea details Hawking's idea of the particles produced by black holes. The beauty of your work is that you present it in a more graphical way whereas Hawking was more abstract. And, from my viewpoint, the particles from black holes support my theory regarding motion constructs.

Thanks again and best wishes!

Rafael

Raf

Stay with the toroid. I need a new name for a spiral multi helix that's joined at the ends, encompassing the Krispy Kreme. How about a 'Torix' or a 'Heloid'? Did you know the South Atlantic anomaly is the centre of cusp of our toroidal ionosphere/plasmasphere (the latter the outer more electron rich part). Not a lot of people know that. It's wandering around increasingly, almost certainly in advance of our overdue polarity change.

I've mailed you ref. a joint project. I can't recall if I left you this, http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 which you'd better read so you know what some logical DFM conclusions are.

Peter

Dear Rafael and Peter,

This warped torus has both a Moebius strip "helical twist" behavior and a Fullerene lattice-like behavior. I'm going to build a larger paper model, and probably cut up a couple of Soccer balls within the week. Today is my daughter's birthday, so I'm busy all weekend...

Have Fun!

Pete,

I should clarify something.

I think of at least two distinct types of motion constructs - the single-body motion constructs (particles) and the many-body motion constructs (aggregate of particles).

At the fundamental level, we have the single-body particulate motion constructs that are formed by the quantization of gravity. These motion constructs are the fundamental particles.

I think the 'cores' of black holes are the extreme single-body particulate motion constructs. My idea is that the massive stars and planets that fall as many-body motion constructs into a black hole are actually 'shredded' and they cease to be many-body motion constructs. They revert to being fundamental motions that are merged with the singular kinematic construct of the black hole core.

In the single-body motion constructs (such as particles and black holes), it appears that the resultant kinematic form is mainly the simple toroidal - this is where we have the simple dipole with the ingoing flow at one pole and the outgoing flow at the other pole.

However, in the many-body motion constructs (where we have the single-body motion constructs that interact to form the atoms, molecules, planets, stars, etc.), it appears that the resultant kinematic form is not always the simple toroidal - this is where we have the complex of currents/fields, the complex of the magnetic and electric currents.

The latter is probably where you have your Krispy Kreme wrapped with the toroidal.

Rafael

-----

Ray,

I think the resolved motion that is a "helical twist" around the toroid is in the single-body motion construct. It is also in the many-body motion constructs. But the unresolved motions of "lattice-like behavior" has got to be in the many-body motion constructs.

The motions are 'unresolved' if the simplex feature of the lattice are retained. Although of course the vectors that form the lattice are inevitably resolved depending on the kinematic intensities - such as the black hole 'singularity' conditions. Now, that is of course seeing vectors not scalars, since I employ kinematics not geometrics.

Rafael

P.S. Please forgive my delayed reply. I'm a bit busy. As it is, I'm doing this reply at the office of a client while I'm doing some work. Not very ethical...

Pete, "Torix" is good. It's consistent with the "Toroid" term.

Ray, a moebius strip wrapped lattice-like on a toroid surface is a bit difficult if not impossible; but the helix twisted to map the toroid body looks fine, with the strip twisted helical-like for a moebius turn of the strip for the joined ends - altho this is difficult with the helical strip shrunk at the toroid hole and stretched at the outside of the toroid ring; do tell us how your cuts go... :)

Rafael

Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria - suggestions for improvement.

Sir,

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

"We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog". Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called "established theories" due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.

Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg's boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb's law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined "reality" and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.

Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.

A set of thirty-five finalists (the "Finalists") have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as "Community evaluators". Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.

Most contestants are followers of what they call as "mainstream physics". Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.

In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog "refers, at least implicitly, to the 'ultimate' nature of reality, the fundamental layer." He admits that "I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms." Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about "speculative scenario". Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.

The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.

The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.

Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) "Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you." There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.

The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.

Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.

In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.

Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light".

Regards,

Basudeba.