I just posted the following in Florin's blog.
Hi, all ye FQXi folks!
I just learned about these discussions from Dr Ray Munroe who mentioned their discussion with Xiang He.
I haven't read all the post. But I say Edwin E Klingman's position is still the more interesting and relevant, although his propositions are inadequate because of the flawed reasoning behind his logics and mathematics.
However, I can appreciate Edwin's ideas,.. because I actually have ideas similar to his. But we have several major differences in our ideas.
Edwin assumes a primordial gravity field (G-field), which he presents as the primordial continuous reality. But he merely assumes the existence of the G-field without providing an explanation for the origin of gravity. In this his theory is significantly incomplete.
Edwin presents the C-field core as the discrete particle reality. He apparently puts a distinction between the core as the discrete particle and the induced secondary C-field as no longer a part of the discrete particle reality. However, Edwin's presentation of his ideas regarding the fundamental components of reality shows his failure to make the careful distinctions regarding the fundamental aspects of reality as fundamentals individually. This characterizes the major flaw in his reasoning.
For instance, Edwin says - "action orthogonal to a radial field vector can produce a vortex or cyclical phenomenon in a region of space, introducing duration or cycle time. So time appears when the G-field symmetry breaks and local oscillations, i.e. natural clocks, occur."
Apparently, Edwin says motion occurred and introduced duration. But motion is "displacement per unit time." The idea of displacement per unit time clearly posits that motion and duration are in unison. Evidently, Edwin does not say that motion as an occurrence is fundamental, and such that therefore he does not say that duration as an occurrence is also fundamental. Fundamentals are not contingent on or emergent off the existence of another fundamental. They simply exist and, in the case of the occurrences, the fundamental occurrences simply occur in unison. Edwin errs in this crucial idea regarding motion and duration.
It appears that Edwin remains in the embrace of the idea of spacetime transformations when in fact the underlying idea of the G-field and the C-field is the idea of the motion transformations that occur in unison with the duration transformation. Also, Edwin still talks about the curvature of space. In these he errs and we clearly differ.
I have fully embraced the idea of the motion transformations that occur in unison with the duration transformation as expressed in my theory of kinematic relativity - which is more straightforward and more complete in the distinctions and treatment of the fundamentals regarding the nature of reality.
In my FQXi essay I have listed: space, substance, motion, time, instance and duration. I have categorized the first three as of the realm of phenomena and the other three as purely of the realm of noumena.
My distinctions regarding the fundamental components of reality distinguish them according to their most fundamental functions.
Space is the 3D volumetric existential (i.e., essence) that simply gets occupied. This is its simple and sole function - it gets occupied. The idea of a dynamic space is pure nonsense. There is no such thing as the motion or the curvature (acceleration) of space, the fundamental principles of pure kinematics do not indicate a dynamic space... Space is a continuum.
Substance is the space-occupying existential. Substance is by itself aethereal. But besides being the space-occupying reality, it is also the medium for the definitions of motion that renders the corporeal tangibility... Substance is a continuum.
Motion is the essence that defines the corporeality (i.e., cosmic mass and energy) on the substance that occupies space. Motion renders the 'texture' in the substance. Motion is the essence that renders the transformations as the very phenomena of nature. It is motion itself that is dynamic and corporeal (tangible)... Motion is a continuum.
Substance and motion together define matter in space. Matter occupies space and has cosmic mass-energy (i.e., motion).
Corporeality, the phenomena in nature, is therefore the kinetic definitions in the kinematic continuum. The gravity fields and the quantum particle fields are embedded in the kinematic continuum - the all-encompassing field. The fields are fields of motion. Mass and energy are localized or quantized in the kinematic continuum.
My idea of the fundamental quantum particles is that of motions quantized in a toroidal kinematic configuration. There are two basic toroidal kinematic configurations - one having the left-spin property and the other having the right-spin property. (Admittedly, this idea is quite similar to Edwin's C-field.)
The basic toroidal kinematic configurations are sustained by the pulsating but generally continuous kinetic vectors 'tangentally' supplied by the gravitational field that gets oriented locally in the kinematic continuum wherever there is a kinematic bias caused by the existence of the particulated/quantized motions (i.e., mass). The pulsation is important because this is the only way whereby quantum stabilities are achieved.
The basic toroidal kinematic configurations are the fundamental particles. They are of varied mass-energy content and density according to the incident kinetic vectors that enter their domains. These kinematic configurations interact because their configurations define kinematic tendencies (e.g., fields). Their interactions form the more complex non-singular kinematic configurations - e.g., 'paired' particles, atoms, molecules, and etc.
Whereas Edwin has none, I have my explanation for the origin of gravity that describes the nature of its existence as the origin of its existence - which is a beauty since therein the existence of the primordial occurrence is the cause of its own existence and such that gravity becomes a self-sustaining reality.
My idea regarding the origin of gravity is mentioned in my FQXi essay, although I did not explain it there. But my idea regarding the origin of gravity is explained in my essay for the Gravity Research Foundation Competition.
An explanation of my idea of the origin of gravity is found HERE. (I broke the link to the pdf, because of the GRF Competition's no-prior-publication rules.)
In my description of the phenomena in nature, the principal idea is that of kinematic relativity in which we have the idea of the motion transformations embedded in an infinite kinematic continuum. The idea of the motion transformations is according to the fundamental principle of pure kinematics - the idea of the interactions of the motions themselves, the motion of motions, the idea that the objects in motion are motions themselves, the idea that particles, mass and energy are constructs of motion.
This idea is revealed by the deeper analysis of the pythagorean suggestion - in the which the motion indicated by the vector a interacts with the motion indicated by vector b, resulting in the resolved motion c. The tensors and complexes allow deeper insights to this for the case of the discretized quantum particles.
There is therefore no need to ascribe motion to space, nor to the aethereal substance, nor to anything else - these are unnecessary redundancies. There is only the motion of motions, with mass and energy clearly shown as constructs of motion.
The simplicity of this view speaks for itself.
As for the noumena - time, instance and duration, maybe later... This post about the phenomena is quite long already...
In relation to Florin's topic, I offer the new kinematic relativity clothed in (1) the idea of the motion transformations, (2) the genesis formula, and (3) the origin of gravity. Plus, therefore, perhaps the beggar's death...
Rafael
