A close friend of mine has informed me of your insolence to associate me with your ideas about reality. As you know very well, I find your work lacking any physical validity and think that the mathematical rigor glows by its absence.
I urge you to immediately rectify the many erroneous statements attributed to me in your Essay and to publish what I actually said about your work, as well as about the books and papers that you sent me.
Hello,
Have you heard of "hypothesis non fingo"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo
"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."
I wonder why FQXi even accepted this paper. It is plain insult to the memory of one of the greatest empiricists of all times.
Hi,
Apparently, you failed to understand that the story was a description of a dream. In dreams people may experience strange things which, however, have nothing to do with reality. Nobody would take dreams seriously, even less feel offended by them.
Best,
Jarmo
I urge you to immediately rectify the many erroneous statements attributed to me in your Essay and to publish what I ACTUALLY SAID IN YOUR DREAM.
Dear Jarmo,
Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top ten placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the top front runners btw:
Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?
Best wishes,
Alan
Dear Tom,
Looking in vain for something possibly valuable here or at least a reply to my comment concerning Newton, I got aware of your comment on Euler (1707-1783) who interpreted the complex plane introduced by Gauss (1777-1855).
I agree, that non-linear functions like sin, cos, exp, lg, etc. provide links between continuous and discrete quantities. Can you please explain to me the notion continuous metric?
Regards,
Eckard
Eckard,
A continuous curve.
Tom
I am not sure, whether I understood your question, but anyway, to understand the Coulomb force you do not need any mechanical models. Instead, you consider the symmmetry properties of ordinary, four-dimensional flat spacetime.
To undestand the Coulmb force in terms of the properties of spacetime you may begin with spin 1/2 particles (electrons, or example). If you construct a field equation for a spin 1/2 particle in flat spacetime, the resulting equation must be compatible with Einstein's special relativity. More precisely, it must be Lorentz invariant. The Lorentz invariance is one of the symmetries of flat spacetime. The Lorentz invariant equation in question is known as Dirac equation. It turns out that the Dirac equation, in turn, possesses internal, global symmetry, which is known as U(1)symmetry. To make the U(1) symmetry a local symmetry, you need the so-called gauge connection, and a coupling constant, which may be interpreted as the electric charge of the electron. So, in addition to the Dirac field, you now have also a gauge connection. To make a theory consistent, you need, in addition to the Dirac equation, for the gauge connection a field equation, which possesses both the U(1) and the Lorentz symmetries. The simplest possible equation with these properties may be shown to be equivalent with Maxwell equations for the electric and the magnetic fields. So to obtain the Coulomb interaction you only have to consider the implications of the symmetries of spacetime, and no mechanical analogues are needed.
Best,
Jarmo
Dear Sir,
Special Relativity is not only conceptually, but also mathematically wrong. This is what Einstein describes in his 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":
Einstein: We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:
5. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
6. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
Our comments: Here clock at A is the privileged frame of reference. Yet, he tells the opposite by denying any privileged frame of reference. Further, his description of the length measurement is faulty. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.
Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-
(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.
(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod".
In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.
The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system". This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.
Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).
Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.
Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation.
His "mathematics" using the equation for the sphere is all wrong. For example, he has used equations x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 = 0 and ξ^2 + η^2 + ζ^2 - c^2 τ^2 = 0 to describe two spheres that the observers see of the evolution of the same light pulse. Apart from the fact that the above equation of the sphere is mathematically wrong (it describes a sphere with the center at origin, whose z-axis is zero, i.e., not a sphere, but a circle), it also shows how the same treats time differently. Since general equation of sphere is supposed to be x^2+y^2+z^2+Dx+Ey+Fz+G = 0, both the equations can at best describe two spheres with origin at (0,0,0) and the points (x,y,z) and (ξ, η, ζ ) on the circumference of the respective spheres. Since the second person is moving away from the origin, the second equation is not applicable in his case. Assuming he sees the same sphere, he should know its origin (because he has already seen it, otherwise he will not know that it is the same light pulse. In the later case there is no way to correlate both pulses) and its present location. In other words, he will measure the same radius as the other person, implying: c^2t^2 = c^2 τ^2 or t = τ.
Again, if x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 = x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-c^2 τ ^2, t ≠ τ.
This creates a contradiction, which invalidates his mathematics.
According to our theory, gravity is a composite force of seven forces that are generated based on their charge. Thus, they are related to charge interactions. But we do not accept Coulomb's law. We have a different theory for it. We derive it from fundamental principles. In Coulomb's law, F = k Q1 x Q2 /d^2. In a charge neutral object, either Q1 or Q2 will be zero reducing the whole equation to zero. This implies that no interaction is possible between a charged object and a charge neutral object. But this is contrary to experience. Hence the format of Coulomb's law is wrong.
As we have repeatedly described, the atoms can be stable only when they are slightly negatively charged which makes the force directed towards the nucleus dominate the opposite force, but is not apparent from outside. Hence we do not experience it. We have theoretically derived the value of the electric charge of protons, neutrons and electrons as +10/11, -1/11 and -1. The negative sign indicates that the net force is directed towards the nucleus. Charge interaction takes place when a particle tries to attain equilibrium by coupling with another particle having similar charge. The proton has +10/11 charge means it is deficient in -1/11 charge. The general principle is same charge attracts. Thus, it interacts with the negative charge of electrons. The resultant hydrogen atom has a net charge of -1/11. Thus, it is highly reactionary. This -1/11 charge interacts with that of the neutron to form stable particles. These interactions can be of four types.
Positive + positive = explosive. By this, what we mean is the fusion reaction that leads to unleashing of huge amounts of energy. It's opposite is also true in the case of fission, but since it is reduction, there is less energy release.
Positive + negative (total interaction) = internally creative (increased atomic number.) This means that if one proton and one electron is added to the atom, the atomic number goes up.
Positive + negative (partial interaction) = externally creative (becomes an ion.) This means that if one proton or one electron is added to the atom, the atom becomes ionic.
Negative + negative = no reaction. What it actually means is that though there will be no reaction between the two negatively charged particles; they will appear to repel each other as their nature is confinement. Like two pots that confine water cannot occupy the same place and if one is placed near another with some areas overlapping, then both repel each other. This is shown in the "Wheeler's Aharonov-Bohm experiment".
The Kaluza-Klein compactification and other "theories" relating to extra-dimensions are only figments of imagination. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For perception of the spread of the object, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the object must interact with that of our eyes. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both are perpendicular to the direction of motion, we can perceive the spread only in these three directions. Measuring the spread is essentially measuring the space occupied by it. This measurement can be done only with reference to some external frame of reference. For the above reason, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the structure (spread) of the object. Based on the positive and negative (spreading out and contracting in) directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x, y), (-x, y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y) where x = y for any value of x and y, which also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures.
Regards,
basudeba
Dear Sir,
You talk about space-time without properly defining the terms. Both space and time are related to the order of arrangement in the field, i.e., sequence of objects and events contained in them like the design on a fabric. Both space and time co-exist like the fabric and its back ground color. The perception of each sequence is interrupted by an interval however infinitesimal. The interval between objects is called space and that between events is called time. We take a fairly intelligible and repetitive interval and use it as the unit, where necessary by subdividing it. We compare the designated interval with this unit interval and call the result measurement of space and time respectively.
Since space and time have no physical existence like particles and fields, we use alternative symbolism of objects and events to describe them. Thus, what Euclid called space is not the interval between objects, but the basic frame of reference on which the objects are placed as markers. To this extent he is right. Dedekind and others did not know this concept. Hence they wrongly held that "it is possible to construct discontinuous spaces in which Euclidean geometry holds". Geometry is related to measurement of space and no measurement except distance (line) is possible in discontinuous spaces like in the interval between a point on Earth and another point on the Sun or Moon. However, this fallacy was not apparent to the others who built theories upon such invalid foundation. Since space is the interval between objects, the space is continuous throughout the Universe.
Your description of radiation energy is wrong. We have shown in various threads that only the field is absolute and particles are nothing but locally confined field. This changes the density of the field at various localities that leads to interaction between them. Whether the particles are macro particles or micro particles, all follow the same principle. The radiations are either micro particles or waves propagated in the field. Both interact based on energy density. The different frequencies show the initial release of energy to the field that moves at different velocities based on the field density and interaction with other velocities. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the energies carried by the different frequencies of the radiation in a given temperature add up to become infinite.
We have discussed SR and refuted it. We have also discussed Coulomb's Law and dimensions earlier and given different interpretations to the modern concept. Since the concepts relied upon by you are faulty, it is no wonder that you come to the conclusion that "it seems to me likely that there exists a still unknown law of Nature, closely related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics". We have discussed this law below the essay of Mr. Peter Jackson. We reproduce it below:
Now we will explain 'velocity of the field', which also will explain the constancy of 'c'. We have already explained that the basic nature of the field is equilibrium. The basic nature of forces is displacement. This gives rise to two different types of inertia: inertia of motion due to forces and inertia of restoration (elasticity) due to the field. This leads to both these inertia acting against a point of equilibrium to create locally confined structures. These structures, which are nothing but confined field is called "rayi". Both the inertias further act on "rayi". In such a scenario, the combined effect leads to repeated confinement around the point of equilibrium. The confined structures in which inertia of restoration dominates, is called particle (moorty). In the opposite case, it is called "amrita". This can be considered as your DFM.
The confinement could be strong, weak or loose, which leads to the formation of solids, fluids (including gases) and plasma. We call these 'dhruva", "dhartra" and "dharuna" respectively. Where the inertia of motion dominates, it appears as heat. Depending upon the nature of the particles, the propagation of heat is also classified into three categories. In solids, plasma and fluids, these are done by conduction, radiation and convection. We call these as "nirbhuja", "pratrirnna" and "ubhayamantarena" respectively. The third category gives rise to the electric field. Thus, electric behaves like a hot fluid.
Till now we were discussing about the confinement of "rayi" (where inertia of restoration dominates). In the opposite case, where inertia of motion dominates, "rayi" gives rise to three corresponding forces of cold confinement. These can explain the effects of the so-called "dark matter and dark energy". Magnetism belongs to this category. Thus, magnetism is a cold confining force. Since both these are different states of "rayi", electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same coin.
Till now we were discussing "rayi", which is a part of the primordial field dominated by inertia of restoration. The other part is dominated by inertia of motion, which we call "praana". The effect of this is felt by other bodies. Hence this gives rise to force. Depending on their effects on different bodies, these forces are classified into different groups discussed earlier. While strong, weak, electromagnetic and radioactive disintegration forces belong to this category associated with inertia of motion and heat, gravitational interaction is associated with inertia of restoration and cold. Thus, they cannot be united.
After a part of the primordial field is confined within "rayi", inertia of restoration in the field becomes weak and inertia of motion dominates. Thus, the field generates waves that expand rapidly in all directions. You call this big bang. The effects of "rayi" and "praana" in the primordial medium create the bow shock effect. This leads to reduced velocity of the wave, which ultimately stabilizes, cutting off a vast volume which we call universe. Since there is no reason to believe that it happens only in our locality, we believe in multiverses, which are similar universes and not as described by MWI.
After the bow shock comes to rest, the forces of inertia of motion and inertia of restoration cancel each other leading both to a superposition of states. We call this "maayaa". But the equilibrium is momentary, since the balance between "rayi" and "praana" within the confinement of "maayaa" has not been equated, the next moment inertia of restoration dominates and there is massive contraction. You call this inflation. We call this force "dhaaraa". This creates further interaction, which leads to structure formation. We call this "jaayaa". Outside the structures, the inertia of restoration still dominates. You call it the cosmic microwave back ground radiation. We call it "aapah". Thus, the universe can be picturised as an ocean containing many islands. The galaxies can be imagined to float in an "ocean" called "saraswaan", the stars can be imagined to float in an "ocean" called "nabhaswaan", and the Earth like planets can be imagined to float in an "ocean" called "samudra arnava".
Just like the Earth orbits the Sun and spins around its own axis due to the combined effects of the Sun's movement and that of the inter-stellar medium that move in different directions on the one hand, the different magnetic fields on the other hand (in a broader scale, these are the effects of "rayi and praana" and "dhaaraa and jaayaa"), the Universe as a whole also moves within the confines of "maayaa". This appears as the receding galaxies, just like the planets sometimes appear to move away from each other. This movement of the Universal field is constant for all structures. This is what you describe as "space has inertia and angular momentum."
It is well known that objects are perceived only during transition. The transition can be of two types: the object can move or the field containing the object can move while the object is stationary (both together are also possible, but they fall into these two groups). In the case of electromagnetic field in space, it is the field that moves at a constant velocity. You also admit it when you say: "ALL matter in motion is in motion with respect to a LOCAL background. Light entering the galaxy is Doppler shifted by the Halo to the galaxies 'c', again at the heliopause to the Sun's 'c', and at the Ionosphere to the Earths 'c', and on ad infinitum." The only difference is that you presume the particle is moving at 'c' with respect to the back ground, which you take as at rest. We take the opposite view of the background with us moving at 'c'. Like we do not experience the motion of the Earth, but think the Sun and the stars are orbiting it, we do not experience the motion of the back ground since we are also moving with it. But the effects in both cases are the same.
Mr. Constantin Zaharia Leshan, in his post dated Mar.1 had described your essay as "essays-stories about physics which contain physics' information copied from physics textbooks or other published papers". We agree with his views and this is one of the reasons why we did not take your essay seriously earlier. We ponder why science is becoming increasingly fictional. Is it a ploy to cover up the failures of theoretical physicists to come up with something new in decades while experimental physicists are achieving marvelous results? The support your essay received during community voting hints at this possibility.
Regards,
basudeba.
Thank you Tom. I just wonder why you did not give preference to the more profane word curve.
Jarmo seems to hope I will forget my questions.
Eckard
Jarmo,
Thanks for the reply. We have a difference of opinion on this one then. No problem.
Kind regards,
Alan
I think God is making gravity in order to make the universe happy.
This is somewhat off-topic, but then again, perhaps not.
Consider the basic Kerr metric equation: J = aGm^2/c,
where J = total momentum
a = dimensionless rotational parameter.
If J = (j{j+1})^1/2 h-bar
and we use G = G' = 2.18 x 10^31 cm^3/g sec^2
(call it the strong force coupling constant)
then: m = (j{j+1}/a^2)^1/4 (h-bar c/G')^1/2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PROTON
For j = 1/2 and a = 4/9 [i.e., ~1/2], m = 942.935 MeV
(proton mass = 938.3 MeV)
We notice that (h-bar c/G')^1/2 has the form of the Planck mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRON
If we choose (alpha^2 e^2/G')^1/2 as our fundamental mass,
in place of (h-bar c/G')^1/2, i.e., replace (h-bar c) with (alpha^2 e^2)
and call it the "Einstein mass", our mass equation becomes
m = (j{j+1}/a^2)^1/4 (alpha^2 e^2/G')^1/2.
For j = 1/2 and a = 7/12 [again ~1/2], m = 0.5131 MeV
(electron mass = 0.511 MeV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEUTRON
Neutron mass = proton mass + 3(Einstein mass) = 939.5354 MeV
(neutron mass = 939.566 MeV).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The electron mass, and the proton-neutron mass difference,
have never been explained.
For scientists who would like to see a more detailed summary
of these theoretical results, I have a brief 3-page summary that
explains the retrodictions in more detail.
If you send me an email I will attach a doc. file or pdf (your choice)
in my reply.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Dr. Christian Corda uses pseudonyms 'peter', 'egal, Darth Didious.
Dear Jarmo, dear readers,
this is absolutely false, I am NOT "Peter".
On the other hand, the fake who signed as "Sir Issac Newton" is the same crank who signed a post in my Essay-page as "Albert Einstein". In fact, the sentences in the above post are almost the same of the ones in my Essay-page. I suspect that he is a poor man who is obsessed by me, but I will not mention his name for a sake of mercy.
Cheers,
Ch.
Dear Jarmo,
Congratulations on winning the first prize! Brilliant and well-deserved.
Cheers,
Tejinder Singh
Congratulations Jarmo. I stand by everything I said in my original post on this thread. Your essay seemed to be a popular choice with the community throughout the contest.I am glad that the judges found what they were looking for in your essay. I have discovered the meeting with sir Issac vehicle published elsewhere, so it is not as original an idea as I at first thought but that does not diminish the quality of the writing or the correctness of the scientific and mathematical content. Well done you.
Dear Jarmo
I think Sir Isaac is a bit baffled by email addresses - his message to you ended up in my Inbox for some reason - first he he offers his congratulations to you, but then asks if you are in league with Leibnitz? He also asks if fqxi is some sort of an alchemical symbol? His new email address is newton_fluxions@royalmint.eng
Best wishes from Vladimir
Jarmo
Congratulations, Very well deserved.
I hope you got those documents back!
Best wishes
Peter