Peter,

Moreover, you said "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."

I've read your essay. However, I do not think that the conventional ideas regarding SR and GR can be unified with the conventional ideas regarding QM, even with the extraordinary ideas you've added.

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.

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.

Rafael

Dear Ray,

It actually appears that it does not matter so much what realistic mass value is plugged-in. It appears that half of the total energy increase will always fall on the CMBR curve, and perhaps more so if the correct rate of expansion is considered.

Rafael

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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #64

    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 Eugene,

    There seems to be the unclarified matter regarding the premise of the C-field's strength that Ray is contesting.

    You've stated that "the C-field depends on local mass density ... and this can explain variation in the scale of a." This apparently implies that the accelerations of the objects are affected by local mass densities - including the mass of the objects that are themselves subject to transformations. I think this explains the variations.

    In comparison, I used a 'dipstick' unity value for [mo/r2] to get the acceleration for the quantization wherein the mass-energy content of the seed mass increases. This assumes a 'local' density for the mass that has the relative 'gravitational' acceleration within 3-D space. This also assumes a 'localized' quantization (or condensation) period that is accorded by the general rate of oscillating cosmic expansion." So, not much difference, unless of course somebody can give a precise number for the general cosmic mass density...

    Both of us consider the acceleration according to the local mass density.

    It appears that we differ a bit in our views regarding the source of and how gravity works.

    Your view seems to be that there was a single primordial field of perfect symmetry and that that perfect symmetry broke, the C-field/C-fields emerged and time began. It looks like you are saying that symmetry broke in a radial process.

    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.

    I am sure we both have our views regarding the importance of tangental vectors in the idea of the 'curvature' and in the process of quantization.

    But I have difficulty finding where tangental vectors began the quantization process or broke the symmetry in your proponed 'one' primordial field of perfect symmetry. The idea of a field is founded on the idea of oriented vectors (lines of force/motion). So, perhaps your single primordial field of perfect unbroken symmetry had a concentric orientation - such that your primordial field was perhaps a singularity-oriented field. But how did the perfect symmetry of your one primordial field break?

    It is clearly illogical to say that random fluctuations broke the symmetry because the idea of a single perfect symmetry implies the absence and hence impossibility of random fluctuations. So, how did the perfect symmetry of your one primordial field break?

    No matter how I look at the picture that you present, I still find my idea the more logical and rational. I simply like the idea of an all-encompassing kinematic field complete with all the possible components but in a continuous quantization (cosmic mass-energy formation) process.

    So, evidently I question your conclusion/proposition that - "A continuous universe evolves to discrete reality" because of your idea of the one primordial field. But the part that says - "where quantum conditions carve up the continuum, such that analog inputs occasion digital outputs or threshold crossings" is okay with me.

    -

    Your essay is cluttered with a lot of details but is rather unclear about the fundamental essence involved in the transformations to either the continuous or discrete realities. I hope someday you will concede regarding the idea of motion transformations, the idea of kinematic relativity and the idea of the all-encompassing kinematic field. Of course, tongue in cheek! :)

    -

    It is amazing how this essay contest has opened so many doors. 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 with the clear emphasis on the idea of motion transformations instead of the idea of spacetime transformations...

    I haven't read all the essays. So, it makes me wonder if there is anyone here who clearly advocates "the idea of motion transformations" instead of "the idea of spacetime transformations" or "the idea of arbitrary transformations of space and time." If there is none, then I must be the first with the clarity.

    Eugene, I hope you won't mind so much my questions and somewhat critical comments.

    Kind regards,

    Rafael

      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

      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

        Rafael,

        Neither "makes sense" to me: that the universe should either 1) come into being, or 2) always have existed.

        Nevertheless, the problem, as I stated, is that of producing all of the known particles (without producing anything else!). And having already 'discovered' a reasonable explanation for how the universe 'evolves' and 'grows' in my model, I'm not looking very hard for a model that I believe won't work. In fact, I don't think this will be possible without a 'big bang' as source of energy, but of course you're welcome to try.

        But if I understand your above remark, you are willing to assume that the universe "with all the pieces" just "is". I personally find that very unaesthetic and would have no interest in such a model.

        But the beauty of fqxi is that they encourage all attempts.

        Happy hunting,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        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 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

          • [deleted]

          • Post #74

          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

          • [deleted]

          • Post #76

          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

              • [deleted]

              • Post #78

              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

              • [deleted]

              • Post #79

              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

              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