Ahh no, I'm not advocating the idea of a medium at all. I don't believe in Einstein's spacetime contiuum idea. I'm suggesting that the graviton can be modelled by an Archimedes screw analogy. It's the mechanical structure of reality which gives a particle a wave nature. It's this helical structure which can give a particle the ability to induce a force of attraction when it interacts with another particle. If this helical screw then travelled around a hypersphere, or wraparound universe, then it would emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy.

I'm sorry, but I was only able to skim read your essay as I have a non-mathematical background. You seemed to have the idea of visualisation of reality w.r.t the the Young's slit experiment as being of paramount importance. This is what prompted me to reply. Kind regards, Alan

Alan,

you may have noticed from my biography that I too have a non mathematical background and am not a physics specialist. I therefore have not taken a mathematical approach to the presentation of my ideas and argument at all.

The essay is written in plain English and I have made considerable effort, through editing, to have only a user friendly sentence structure throughout. I have also tried very hard to reduce the content so that there is a flow of ideas that make an argument rather than just bombarding the reader with information. It is still complicated because the whole subject that it is dealing with is complex.

I think you should make the effort to read it rather than dismiss out of hand.It is dealing with very important and foundational aspects of physics, answers questions and overcomes paradoxes. I have taken the foundation of the essay to be that in order to determine if reality is digital or analogue we must first ascertain what is meant by reality.Some new terminology is necessary because new ideas are being discussed which do not have counterparts in the English vocabulary.

Yes I do consider a medium to be necessary. Nobel prize winner Richard Feynman considered the understanding of this experiment to be of paramount importance to the understanding of quantum physics.I have a quote by him on my final notes page. If you wish to discuss this subject with me I suggest first you read what I have said in the essay, which will explain my viewpoint.

Dear Basudeba,

Please call me Georgina. I refer to all other contributers by their first names unless they refer to themselves with a different name or title, so will address you in a likewise manner.

I am glad that you have found my essay thought provoking. I am not sure when you mention discordant notes if you are referring to -my essay- or just within mainstream physics. My own essay is quite a departure from current mainstream thinking and also re-looks at relativity. It finds it to be related to the -appearance- of reality but not the underlying object reality which is where causality occurs and where the data necessary for the space-time reality to be constructed is generated.

I have not yet read your essay as there are lots to read now and I have until recently been concentrating on writing my own.I will be interested in any correspondence of view between them, but also in any novel thinking. When /if I read your essay I will certainly place feedback and if I am able to clarify or constructively argue any of the points raised within it I will do so.In the meantime.. Good luck and kind regards Georgina.

    Hi James,

    So I did! I do hope the other contestants have read the evaluation criteria and are using -them- to rate the essays.

    Dear Eckard,

    I think it is the wording of your posts that has confused me.

    I now assume that you are saying that when considering objective reality, (that is the underlying object reality), the observer must be discounted. Which I do agree with, although in practice we can not make observations without an observer. The object or particle does have an actual but ever changing object universal position but it can not be discerned without an object universal perspective.

    I have said in the essay that it is necessary in experiments to use the observations of several observers with different frames of reference. From those observations one can then ascertain what objective position would allow all observers to see what they see. The observers all seeing the object at different times along its trajectory. It will only be a scale dependent super relative position but is better than the observation of a single observer which is entirely subjective.

    Hi Joseph ,

    I should add that I am aware that analogies should be used with care as they do not always accurately demonstrate, by their use, the idea to which they are related. I did give some careful thought to the analogies used and think that they not only help to explain the ideas presented but help to break the essay up so that it is not merely a technical monologue.I am glad that you liked their inclusion.

    Okay, sorry, I think I got mixed up with another essay I had read. My problem is that you start with the assumption that Einstein's spacetime continuum is written in a tablet from god. What I'm saying is that if you take a step back, a particle model of gravity from Newton's era would negate the need for his spacetime continuum. This has been overlooked imo. You won't agree with me of course, which is okay. Good luck in the competition Georgina.

    Basudeba

    I hadn't heard the Eddington story and loved it, as very appropriate to Georgina's and to my propositions. I now can't recall what I have and havent read, but if I haven't read yours yet I will.

    Georgina

    I see we're no longer side by side in the community list, so I shall give yours the exceptional rating it deserves, - against the criteria of course.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Alan,

    I most certainly will not agree with what you have just said because I do not anywhere, in any way, say that "Einstein's space-time continuum is written in a tablet from God".

    I have merely said that the model fits our observations of reality well. (That is why it has not been dis proven for so many years.)It is however an incomplete model. Which is why there are paradoxes.

    If you actually read my essay you would have a better understanding of what I am really saying without having to jump to wild and incorrect assumptions.

    Peter,

    thank you very much indeed. I am grateful for the very positive feedback and ideas for further reading and research that you have given me. There is too much to consider all at once though. I really do need time to consider all of the the essays I have read before allocating my votes. I will probably do this much later. I do like to take my time when thinking things over. Please be reassured that I will give your essay careful consideration.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #48

    Dear Georgina,

    Certainly we will agree on that the question of synchrony is worth clarification. Because my reasoning led me to suspicions, I will collect and check related arguments. I already put some questions to Peter and I guess he will need some time for an easily understandable and convincing reply.

    What about Basudeba, I am disappointed because I found in his essay much less than in his comment here.

    Unfortunately my command of English is perhaps too poor. What did you mean with "discounted": rejected, ignored, or made cheaper?

    You are using the expressions "object universal position" and "object universal perspective". I know "the object" and "to object". Could I read your "object" as the adjective "objective"?

    Given I observe a process, then I am of course as real as is the process. Let's consider Cebel seconding a duel on pistols between Abel and Bebel. The time of flight from Cebel to Abel or to Bebel must not give Abel a chance that is different from Bebel's chance to fire first. Do you agree? Do we need an universal perspective?

    Regards,

    Eckard

    Hands-up Georgina, you're right and I'm wrong! I've now read your essay more slowly and thoroughly I can see the error of my ways. I only have 2hrs a day of internet time via the library and so I tend to glance and skim read without thinking about it anymore! Okay, I see that you say:

    "Gravity is not due to curvature of space- time, as space time is an image reality, an "illusion", and not object reality with concrete realism. The curvature of space-time is an interpretation fitting the observation of

    image reality, not underlying object reality. If space-time reality is an illusion, as confessed by Einstein, there must be other cause for gravitation than curvature of a non existent space-time manifold. Mass does not

    cause gravity merely by its stationary presence in space-time but because the body is following a trajectory through space and affecting the environment through which it passes, causing the observed gravitational

    field effect."

    What I'm sayting is that the term "mass" is the problem. Object reality has the property of structure and not "mass". If object reality was thought about a little more by Newton and his contempories then a structural image with ORIENTATION would have been devised. This is the only object reality which allows a force of attraction at a distance to be achieved. It's the analogy of the helical screw, and so would have been accessible to Newton and others. It can also easily explain dark energy, if a wraparound universe is envisaged. Now, if you will be kind enough to keep an open mind despite my poor introduction to your essay, will you spend some time to consider my point of view please??

    Congratulations Georgina! How exciting it is that I know someone famous! :-D

    • [deleted]

    • Post #51

    Jason,

    as if, :-D

    Anyone who uses the term "mass" is unwittingly subscribing to a spacetime continuum worldview imo.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #53

    Madam,

    While addressing you, we were not referring to your persona, which is very private to you. We were addressing your intellectual acumen, which is very much in the public domain and which must be respected. It has no name.

    By discordant notes we mean the tendency to follow the herd and jump where the earlier of the species jumped, even when such a jump may not be necessary and may prove fatal. The founders of modern science were great men, but they were not blessed with the tremendous advancement made by current technology. Thus, what they thought were not wrong in their context (except for some very serious mistakes, where novelty overtook correspondence to reality and manipulation overtook logical consistency). Personal standing of the scientist also became more important than theoretical deductions. We will give you a few examples to prove this statement:

    1) Poincare deduced the equation e = mc^2 in 1900, but Einstein, who derived the same equation 5 years later, got the credit for the same.

    2) Eddington publicly humiliated Subrahmanium Chandrasekhar thereby delaying Noble Prize for the same work by 50 years.

    3) Eddington's "proof" of the victory of Einstein's theory over that of Newton was not based on facts, but because of his public standing with the media. There has been much comment on this subject lately.

    4) The "proof" of time dilation of atomic clocks that was taken around the globe is a manipulated one that can be verified from the documents relating to original readings that are still available in archives.

    5) The value of G measured precisely is not the same as that measured earlier. But the theories using the earlier value is still accepted without any question.

    Since many theoretical scientists are leading a cozy life at public expenses by dishing our fantasies in the name of science (LHC up-gradation is one example, while Tevaton is closing down). They have a vested interest in what they call "main stream physics" and term any one deviating from that as "dirtying" their "clean" thread. This loot of public money pains us.

    The need of the hour is to dump the whole of physics, list out the data made available from latest observations and reformulate the theories from the scratch. No amount of patch work will help. We are happy to find out that you have come out with some original ideas. The discordant note related to the few links in your essay to the "official" physics, some of which does not bear scientific scrutiny.

    We have formulated an alternative model deriving from fundamental principles that can explain most interactions without relativity and by demystifying quantum physics. But then we are not an academician nor a research scientist.

    Thanks and regads,

    basudeba

    Dear Sir, (I feel that I must likewise address your nameless intellect since you do not address me personally.I hope you were not offended by my customary familiarity.)

    Thank you for clarifying your earlier message. I now understand. It is an interesting list that you have provided. You are not alone in suggesting that it is necessary to begin afresh, John Merryman has also mentioned this necessity. I certainly agree that the foundations of physics need re evaluation.

    I have spent the last 5 years seriously considering time and its role in reality. I have considered the muddled concept of time to be a huge problem for a long while. And a persistent puzzlement prior to that. I am not denying the existence of time but insisting that it is put in its place and is recognized for what it is. Time is a very complicated term as a large number of concepts are lumped together within it.It has not until recently undergone the kind of scrutiny necessary for scientist to realise what they are dealing with. Many will not be interested.

    I am glad that you appreciate the original ideas within my essay.They have been developed over a number of years but for this contest I have tried to show how they are applicable to practical science and are not mere philosophy.

    I am trying to read and respond positively where I can on other contributor's threads. I -will- read your essay soon.

    Kind regards, Georgina.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #55

    Dear Eckard,

    I am sorry for the delay in replying to your queries.I am also sorry for the ambiguity in my previous reply to you. It is helpful to me too, to discover these ambiguities that make my explanations less clear than they might be.I can then try to avoid them.I am glad that you brought it to my attention.

    I mean by discounted, in this case, ignored. The observer is as real as the object. But the observation made by the observer is of the image not the object itself. Object as I am using it, refers to a material thing with full realism even without the possibility of direct observation.It is not dependent upon observation or conscious experience to bring it into existence. Like the magician's rabbit, it does not have to be seen to be real. So the observer perspective can be ignored when this facet of reality is under consideration.

    I am using the term Object as a substitute for objective (which has the counterpart subjective.) As I do not wish to discuss in this essay only subjective human experience but a physical process occurring irrespective of consciousness. It has been argued by some quantum physicists that conscious awareness is necessary for decoherence to occur but I am saying this is not necessarily so. As there can be inanimate image reality generation. (It requires only a reality interface such as a photographic plate.)

    Image, as I am using it,is a generated representation of the object. It has some similarity to the object or source of the data used to form the image. It is not formed from the same material. It could be an image on film , a sound recording, a visual experience generated by the visual cortex of the brain for example.

    When we are referring to the Object reality, then a universal perspective is not necessary. Objects have actual, ever changing position, that do not rely upon frame of reference. That is the "really real" non relativistic reality. If it was possible to instantly measure distance between each particle and object as you have said A to B must be equal to B to A, it could be mapped. However such measurement is not possible.

    When object and observer are spatially separated and measurements are made it is the appearance of reality, the image, that is observed not the underlying reality. There is delay in transmission of the data and a temporal distortion creeps in to the measurement. Only with an Object universal perspective could the absolute trajectory be ascertained and a non relativistic position at which an object existed in the universe be known.

    We also do not have that universal perspective. Therefore we must be content with a "half way house". A super relative position which is obtained from trajectory observation of a number of observers in different frames of reference. By finding the overlap of those trajectories a position can be found that the object must have occupied in order to generate all of the different trajectory observations. The different observers are seeing the object at different times due to differences of data transmission time.

    I am using the term Object universe to distinguish it from the space-time image reality universe. I has no time dimension but exists as a uni-temporal structure.

    I have not yet read Basudeba's essay but will do so soon.I am also mindful that I must also re read and consider your own, Ewin Klingman's and Peter Jackson's essays.It is too much to accomplish all at once.

    Best regards, Georgina

    Hi Tom,

    Having written 9 pages I would like to think that you had read past the first line and found at least something of merit in it. Apart from your query about the choice of quote in that very first line I have heard nothing more from you.

    The wording of your reply to me on your own thread makes me doubt that you have even read my essay.

    I am not arguing that there is a difference between external reality and our human biology, as you said, but that there is a difference between underlying reality and that reality generated from the input of data to a reality interface, which can be inorganic or organic. That is how temporal distortion becomes incorporated into the generated reality, that I am calling image reality. It is therefore a space-time reality , where as the underlying reality is uni-temporal. I decided it would be more helpful to clarify that matter on this thread as it may also be useful to other people considering the content of my essay.

    Kind regards, Georgina.