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

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.

There is not much that I can do in the contest now. But perhaps some of you might be interested in the following.

Hybrid Fission-Fusion Nuclear Reactor System (a.k.a. APNRSYS)

I need a reputable US collaborator in order to qualify for US DOE research funding. Anyone interested?

Rafael

Eugene and all ye folks,

I somehow finished and got my essay entry submitted to the Gravity Research Foundation Competition. It is hard for me to believe that it will get a place, just as hard as it was for me to believe that my ideas will get accepted by the FQXi community. But, in any case, as it is about the origin of gravity, you folks might be interested in reading it.

You just might appreciate the 3-D gedanken I put forth instead of just the 2-D gendanken that Einstein put forth regarding the inertial and gravitational equivalence.

Eugene, I've argued with you somewhat regarding the origin of the fundamental field (i.e., the gravitational field)... My paper includes my explanation regarding the origin of gravity and shows why I've been inclined to believe in an infinitely hierarchical cosmos. The infinitely hierarchical cosmos is the only way I can explain the origin of gravity and I've explained it a bit in this essay on gravitation.

My essay paper is at http://www.kinematicrelativity.com/article_033.php. You can download the PDF.

I hope you guys will enjoy reading it.

Regards,

Rafael

Dear Rafael,

On Lubos' blog site, you said:

BEGINNING OF QUOTE

I've been working on my idea regarding the origin of gravity. If you remember, I mentioned in my FQXi paper the idea of the revolutions of the cosmic systems in a hierarchical cosmos as the origin of gravity. Basically my idea is that the revolutions are the components of the gravitational tensor - which allows me the explanation how quantization occurs and how there is the CMBR. (My 'origin' idea is totally different from Verlinde's entropic idea of gravity.) I have explained this idea quite a bit in my website.

It looks like the scales 'threshold' may have relevance since this might lead to a clear understanding of how the electric, the magnetic, the nuclear, and all the quantum interactions occur.

I'd like your explanations regarding the 'quantization process' in relation to the 'scales' that you propone. I am hoping that you can explain how your lattices result in the quantization with a description in clearer physical (mass-energy) units beyond just your usual numerical propositions.

It would be great if you could explain the nature of your gravitons at the cosmic and the quantum scales and how they come to existence (the origin of gravitons). I am interested in the physics that your mathematics suggest in order to understand the physical relevance of your proposed scales.

END QUOTE

MY ANSWERS

If you study the symmetry structures of Quaternions (H) and Octonions (O), you will see that a Quaternion has 6 anti-symmetric tensor components (the same order as an SO(4)), whereas an Octonion has 10 symmetric (the same order as an SO(5)) AND 10 anti-symmetric tensor components. The Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity are 10 independent rank-2 tensor equations (looks like part of the Octonion tensor content) that can be reduced to 6 independent rank-2 tensor equations (looks like the Quaternion tensor content) by factoring out spacetime coordinates.

If a physical graviton exists, it doesn't make sense for it to have 6 or 10 degrees-of-freedom (a massless graviton should have spin +2 and spin -2 - two degrees-of-freedom). Thus, I propose that a Quaternionic SO(4) of tensors mixes quantum numbers with an Octonionic SO(5) of tensors to form an SO(6)~SU(4) of massive "WIMP-Gravitons" and a U(1) massless graviton (similar to a larger version of Electroweak where a mixing of quantum numbers between the B and W^0 yields a massless photon and a massive Z).

Of course, Lubos has been trash-talking Baez's work on Octonions, so he would most likely dismiss the above ideas as pure speculation. In the last few days, Lubos has implied that I'm either "crazzy" or "on crack". If there is an error in your logic, Lubos will find it. The greatest error in my logic is that most of these ideas either can't be verified experimentally or the experiment hasn't yet been designed.

Gravity could involve a holographic transform that converts gravitational "charge" in the Multiverse into spacetime "curvature" at our scale. Such a holographic boundary might help explain the non-observation of the graviton and WIMP-gravitons, but realize that these couplings are also extremly weak (too weak for the LHC to observe) and these WIMP-Gravitons may be extremely massive (Kaluza-Klein-like particles of order the Planck scale).

Regarding scale thresholds, I basically think that these are related to the speed-of-light (on the "high" end of the scale) and Planck's constant (on the "low" end of the scale). Different people seem to define these scales differently. I prefer using Dirac's Large Number ~10^41 (and geometrical powers thereof, such as the Cosmological Constant of 10^(-123)~(10^41)^(-3)) as our "high" scale limit, but Robert L. Oldershaw uses ~1.7x10^58 and Edwin Eugene Klingman uses ~10^61 (both are roughly the inverse square-root of the Cosmological Constant).

Translation - Our top scale number is a large physical number that is NOT infinity (13.7 Billion light years is NOT infinite).

The quantization process occurs at the smallest scales. Color, Electric, Weak Hypercharge and Isospin "Charges" all seem to be quantized (as I pointed out in this FQXi essay). *IF* *EITHER* position or momentum is quantized at any scale, *THEN* my analysis of Direct and Reciprocal lattices (see Figure 1 in my FQXi essay) is appropriate. Which came first - the chicken or the egg? quantized spacetime or quantized energy-momentum?

I compare my lattices to standard Solid State structures such as face-centered-cubic-close-packing and the Carbon-60 Buckyball lattices. I'm not saying that spacetime is made up of "Carbon" specifically, but rather, that the "Dirac Sea" (or "vacuum" or "aether") behaves like discrete structures at small enough scales (perhaps distances of order ~10^-31 cm). Self-similarity implies that a similar discrete structure should exist between our scale of existence vs. the Multiverse scale, and this discrete structure may be the tool that transfers holographic gravity from the Multiverse into Spacetime curvature (similar to Subir Sachdev's ideas).

The lattice with the most-likely symmetries and strength to prevent the full collapse of the Black Hole "singularity" is the Buckyball. Thanks to the Hairy Ball theorem, even these structures are not completely stable. But two nested C-60 buckyballs could morph into their homotopic cousin, a lattice-like torus. In this collapse, it seems that 4 hexagons (8 lattice points) separate out of the torus. These 8 independent vertices look suspiciously like either a global SU(3) or a sterile 8-plet.

If you have more questions, please join me at

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/816

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray, I am interested in your lattices because I realized that the various points of a lattice may be indicative of the kinds of particles stabilized (quantized) in various regions of the "outer layer or secondary kinematic field" generated around a "black hole singularity".

In the above, the "outer layer or secondary kinematic field" is quite similar to what EE Klingman refers to as the "secondary C-field". I use "black hole singularity" to refer to the super-massive toroidal kinematic core-configuration that is analogous to a quantum particle but in the very large (super-massive, super-dense) scale.

Also, the points in your lattices may be indicative of the prevalence-distribution of the various elements in galaxies - if applied to the structure of the galaxies.

But these are rather of a long-shot idea...

-

Ray, regarding the scales threshold - I agree, the scales threshold is related to the speed of light (I have also mentioned this elsewhere and in my other postings above).

The luminal velocity is a property of the seed-mass or rest-mass in the relativistic mass-energy genesis formula. The seed-mass in the genesis formula is expressed in terms of c2/c2, which to me means that the luminal motion is rotated and folded in the form of the seed-mass.

The seed-mass or rest-mass of the quantum particle indicates the particle's stabilized mass unit and the mass-coefficient for c2/c2 and for the v2/c2 in the relativistic mass-energy genesis formula.

The applied 3D acceleration (the v2/c2) is the increase over the threshold. I've used the gravitational g for the 3D acceleration - the G(mo/r2).

The seed-mass is the catalyst for the mass creation.

The seed-mass absorbs the kinetic (motion) increase supplied by the 3D acceleration and, as I envision it, the kinetic increase is wrapped into the toroidal configuration of the seed-mass. This is of course beyond the consideration for merely the increase in linear momentum.

The absorbed kinetic energy is then emitted partly as radiant energy and partly as a particle or particles, with the seed-mass re-established to its original kinematic configuration.

If the seed-mass is not re-established to its original kinematic configuration, the seed-mass with its kinetic increase may get broken up into new particles with some excess energy emitted.

(The way I understand it, this is pretty much the generalized picture of the particle production in particle physics and of the quantum energy radiation in quantum theory. In the particle accelerators the particles are accelerated and collided to their 'targets' whereupon the particles with the increased energies get broken up into resultant particles with accompanying energy radiations.)

It appears that the natural gauging process for the particle production and quantum energy emission is an oscillating process that stabilizes the quantum particles - although of course the natural gauging process may also produce unstable particles. In comparison, the artificial gauging process in particle accelerators generally produce unstable particles. Apparently, the gauge theories may be applicable in both.

The gravitational acceleration appears to be the firm candidate as the prime factor in the natural gauging process because the gravitational tensor's component vectors are of the "low-high" velocities of the elliptical orbits of the revolutions of the cosmic gravitational masses, and the low-high velocities indicate oscillation in the infinite hierarchical cosmos.

In my idea of the origin of gravity, I have proponed that the relative vectors of the revolutions of the gravitational masses in the hierarchical cosmos provide (are) the vector components for both the large-scale (analog) and the quantum-scale (discrete) gravitational fields. This of course suggests a TOE. I've explained these in my website and a bit in my other postings above.

-

My 'origin of gravity' idea is different from E Verlinde's proponed origin of gravity in that I do not consider gravity and space as emergent according to the thermodynamics law and also in that I do not find any necessity for the hyped holographic principle.

In E Verlinde's work, the holographic principle poses the idea that the tensors-characterized cosmic process is a 3D hologram projection of the information from the 2D flat-projection (the linearized formulations) of the actually tensors-characterized cosmic process.

The holographic principle is obviously only a round-about way of expression and is quite wrong because we already know that we have the 3D cosmic process. We've simply expressed the 3D cosmic process in linearized formulations for ease. So, the holographic principle is only a complexified repeat of the "flat-landers story" - the same animal...

Apparently, E Verlinde's entropic origin of gravity is only another form of the big bang idea. It is quite like what can be considered via EE Klingman's idea of the C-field that radially expands from a big-bang 'centered-everywhere' scenario in which the G-field may be viewed as an 'emergent' background of the expansion.

Obviously, both E Verlinde's idea and EE Klingman's idea allow the idea of an inflationary and attenuating entropic cosmos. But the idea of an inflationary and attenuating entropic cosmos does not sit well with the idea that gravity is a condensive and a quantum-stabilizing cosmic process.

One cannot therefore find a convincing idea regarding the origin or source of the infinite number of vector components for the gravitational tensor in both the works of E Verlinde and EE Klingman.

In my idea of the origin of gravity I propone that the revolutions of the gravitational masses in the hierarchical cosmos provide (are) the vector components for both the large-scale (analog) and the quantum-scale (discrete) gravitational fields. This, however, requires that an infinitely hierarchical cosmos always existed...

Rafael

Dear Rafael,

To touch on a few points:

My concept of gravity and mass is that these originate at other scales (gravity is super-cosmic and mass is sub-quantum) and are transferred to our scale via some process such as holography. In the process, masses that may be quantized in another scale are "scrambled" such that the masses of fundamental particles seem to be random. Similarly, gravitational "charges" in another scale are better-represented by spacetime "curvature" at our scale.

Your "seed mass" idea may be an appropriate way to represent the mass of a proton because the the component up and down quarks are relatively light-weight and the component transient gluons are (assumed) massless, so the rest mass of the proton is primarily due to the sum of average potential and kinetic energies of these component quarks and gluons.

But to represent an electron rest mass as a "seed mass" requires a preon-like model whereby the electron is composed of "smaller" fundamental particles. Perhaps this preon scale is the sub-quantum scale, and a complete TOE might need to address *ALL* scales. At this stage in the game, I would prefer not to make the model this "complicated".

IMHO, the TOE (if it exists) is a set of symmetries, and these lattices are a legitimate way to represent some of the properties of these symmetries. One example is Garrett Lisi's "E8 triality" symmetry. As I understand Lisi's model, this "triality" is due to an underlying C_3 3-fold rotational symmetry in the 8-D Gossett lattice that Lisi uses to try to explain the origin of three generations of matter. Certainly a 3-fold rotational symmetry *DOES* exist within the Gosset lattice, but other symmetries exist as well. What if the Tevatron and/or LHC discovers a fourth generation of matter? Then we might ascribe the C_3 3-fold Gosset lattice symmetry to color, and we would have to look for another symmetry to explain the number of generations...

Regarding Erik Verlinde's ideas, holography would allow "charges" in 5 AdS spacetime dimensions to reduce down to "curvature" in 4 CFT spacetime dimensions. This is the AdS/CFT correspondence. The idea of gravity being generated in an unseen fifth dimension goes back to Theodor Kaluza ninety years ago, and holography is a known experimental method to reduce 3 dimensional visual information down to a two dimensional piece of film.

I don't think that gravity is "random" ("scrambled" some maybe, but not random), and I therefore dislike the comparison of gravity with entropy and thermodynamics. There is stuff that we don't fully understand at the level of time, space, entropy and mass. Should we scramble everything together into one nice big omelet, or do we need to need to understand the individual components?

Regarding Edwin Klingman's ideas, a "rotational" or "magnetic" component of gravity is another one of those ideas that has been around for a while, and makes sense when we compare a Poisson-like Gravitational field equation with Gauss' law for Electric fields. Although these initial steps of his ideas are correct, Edwin's claims sound exagerated when he starts talking about new ways of representing the Strong force, "trialities" of generations, the cosmological constant and "consciousness". As a Particle Physicist myself, I really don't see how you can build everything out of 4 fundamental types of particles (or even symmetries!). I'm not an opponent, but I am still skeptical...

You worry about the idea of an ever-expanding Universe, but if the Cosmological Constant is "leakage" from another scale, then this result should be expected.

Regarding a Cosmic scale, I haven't done much work on that scale of thinking, but Len Malinowski has at www.scalativity.com.

Towards the end, you said "In my idea of the origin of gravity I propone that the revolutions of the gravitational masses in the hierarchical cosmos provide (are) the vector components for both the large-scale (analog) and the quantum-scale (discrete) gravitational fields. This, however, requires that an infinitely hierarchical cosmos always existed..."

There is a thread at:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/962

that Xiang He started at:

Apr. 8, 2011 @ 05:50 GMT

where Xiang, others, and I discuss the observational consequences of a rotating Universe.

An infinite Big Bang created an infinite Multiverse an infinite period of time ago, and our Observable Universe is a self-similar finite fractal fragment of the Multiverse with a finite age.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray, you missed a lot of points again.

You should reconsider the fundamentals of kinematics (have a pythagorean dream and go vectorial) and then read my explanations regarding the origin of gravity at this link - http://www.kinematicrelativity.com/article_033.php.

I don't worry about the idea of an expanding universe. I love the idea especially in the proper perspective where continuous creation occurs that allows me the view that the concertedly increasing momenta of the cosmic masses is the cause of the spiral expansion generally along their orbits.

An expanding, inflationary and attenuating universe going towards ultimate entropy is a decrepit perspective especially considering that gravity occurs.

Rafael

Dear Rafael,

Your Figure 4 is basically a tokamak geometry - similar to some of the stuff that Peter Jackson and I discussed a couple of months ago, and it would also agree with Edwin Klingman's ideas. My lattice-like torus model at the Black Hole "singularity" (and Alan Lowey's proton model) might be self-similar to your cosmic model.

Relativity prevents us from being able to directly detect the "center" of the Universe or any overall rotation about said "center". Xiang He and I recently discussed Ernest Sternglass' ideas on a rotating Universe in the "Clothes for the Standard Model" blog thread. My thoughts are that we need a "true inertial frame" with which to compare our Universe. The only "true inertial frame" that I could imagine that is greater than our Universe would be the Multiverse. If our Universe is rotating, then we might observe Coriolis effects. Sternglass and Xiang propose that a Universal rotation would cause a repulsive effect such as the cosmological constant, and may explain the reason why so many Galaxies are rotating spirals.

I used a "Hurricane" model (or would you prefer Typhoon?) whereby convective air currents and the Coriolis effect combined can explain the rotation and drift of Hurricanes. Similarly, IF frame-dragging and the Coriolis effect work together to produce rotating galaxies and an ever-expanding Universe, then we should be able to model that in such a manner as to predict the relative amounts of rotation and frame-dragging for various galaxies.

I am doubtful about "continuous creation". If the Big Bang is an ongoing process, then we should be able to detect some clear signals - such as electron-positron annihilation - that are not observed.

Regarding Occam's Razor, I have always considered it to be a balance between Simplicity and Necessity, but many people overemphasize the "simplicity" side of the balancing scales IMHO.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

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

Ray,

The Big Bang idea has been dead a long time ago. Perhaps, even dead before its inception.

The Continuous Creation idea is ascendant and has always been superior to the Big Bang idea for the thousands of years that man has been on the planet.

But asking me for text references on that will mean I go scriptural.

The oldest secular text I could give you is the Hymnn of Creation from the Rig-Veda, and that is considered the oldest text in the secular world (and actually not even secular at that).

Rafael

Hi Rafael,

I think that many of us have core belief systems that somewhat bias our philosophy and expectations. Personally, I am a Christian (Southern Baptist). And although many Southern Baptists follow a literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, I usually interpret parts of the Book of Genesis metaphorically, rather than literally - it is how I deal with certain perceived conflicts.

Regarding "continuous creation", you should go back and review the "Steady State" Universe, and the works of Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Sir Hermann Bondi. Big Bang seems to fit the experimental observations better than Steady State.

My problem with the Big Bang is that General Relativity implies that the Big Bang was a "singularity". I argue that infinity cannot exist within a finite Universe (13.7 billion light-years is huge but finite). Therefore, I conclude that the Big Bang (and the immediately following phase transition, Inflation) created an infinite Multiverse.

Another reasonable conclusion is that any sort of discrete behavior of spacetime limited the observable effects of the Big Bang such that we cannot witness the true "singularity" within our Observable Universe. This discreteness would occur at a very small scale such as ~10^(-33) m, and thus classically-scaled objects (humans of height ~2 m) would contain such a large number of "discrete" states that they would appear to be "continuous".

My comparisons with Solid State physics implies that if spacetime is discrete, then its reciprocal lattice, energy-momentum must also be discrete. Or vice versa, if energy-momentum is discrete, then its reciprocal lattice, spacetime must also be discrete. Within the mathematics of Solid State Physics and Fourier lattice transforms, it really doesn't matter which lattice you name "direct", and which lattice you name "reciprocal", they are equally fundamental.

Phase transitions (such as Inflation) are often the origin of self-similar structures (such as the Mandelbrot set or the Cantor set). I therefore conclude that our Observable Universe is but a finite fractal fragment of the infinite Cantor set that is the Multiverse.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray