Christian
Interesting conversation with Florin going on, on the Essay Blog. I'm inclined to go with you for publication of the Chromatic Dispersion paper anyway, but it really does need some re-writing first, and I can now be less subtle on the inequalities issue. You mentioned an asst editor, if you'd like to get him to look and comment please do.
Best of luck with the judges.
Peter
A close friend of mine has informed me of your insolence to associate my GR with your essay. 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 GR 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.
Dude, did you even read Eistein work?
The real Albert Einstein told: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
The sentence of this fake shows that the real Albert Einstein was very correct...
Dear Peter,
as the peer-review process of a scientific paper is a very hard work, I prefer to wait that you will send me the final form of your paper before sending it to the asst editor.
Cheers,
Ch.
Dear Dr. Corda,
As I have not heard back from you, you either went to Croatia for a holiday, or my answers were too long or unclear. :) In case it happens to be the second, please allow me to clarify further.
1) Einstein's equivalence principle means that we cannot experimentally distinguish between acceleration and a *uniform* gravitational field. But no such *uniform* gravitational field exists in reality. That is, Einstein unrealistically ignored the *non-uniformity* of gravity, for even an arbitrarily small reference frame cannot ignore that non-uniformity according to Ohanian's paper.
2) The velocity of matter is c in *its* rest frame, and is spatially separated from antimatter by c(root-2) - the hypotenuse of Pythagoras' triangle. This 'absolute relationship' is consistent with Special Relativity, for if that matter is at rest relative to the observer we can ask how many seconds t' passes for antimatter if the observer counts t = 1 second, and the reciprocal of the time-dilation formula gives us t' = i. Clearly the 'absolute relationship' holds true even if that matter is not at rest relative to the observer.
3) If there is any uncertainty with respect to the position and momentum of matter, it will be due to the nature of matter, rather than *assuming* Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
I hope that answers your questions. :)
All the best to you and your family,
Robert
Dear Robert,
thanks for clarifications.
Cheers,
Ch.
Gentlemens
I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg
http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm
http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm
Yuri Danoyan
Buongiorno Dr. Corda,
Please excuse this post, but it has occured to me that I should have asked if you would consider my paper for publication. If not but you think my paper has merit, could you help me put it on arXiv?
However, if you are considering my paper for publication then I thank you.
Kindest regards,
Robert
Dear Robert,
actually, in the email that you sent to me you clarified the points that you raised in this page, but you did not ask me the publication of a paper.
If you like a paper of yours to be considered for publication you should send me a pdf copy for the peer-review process.
Cheers,
Ch.
Dear Dr. Corda,
Thank you for the opportunity, but first I will try and make the paper more suitable for publication. (I may need your advice, but I will do my best.)
Kindest regards,
Robert
Dear Dr. Corda,
A slightly revised paper (PDF) has now been sent to you for your consideration. In some respects it is easier to read than the paper submitted here, so I hope it suffices.
Kindest regards,
Robert
dreamer
Dear dreamer,
thanks.
Yes, I am surely a dreamer too.
Best wishes,
Ch.
Dr. Corda:
You have a very impressive knowledge base, so I am going to give you some excellent advice so that you may improve, broaden, and consolidate your ideas.
1) Physics is fundamentally/ultimately based upon force (or energy) as it relates to fundamental and stabilized distance in/of space. This truly balances attraction and repulsion. This is key to unifying physics generally.
ULTIMATELY, distance in/of space must be equivalent with force/energy in keeping with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic/inertia energy.
2) Inertia and gravity are fundamentally and truly equivalent ONLY if they are at half strength. Balance and completeness go hand-in-hand, and balance relates to the middle.
3) Combine and include opposites -- as this is a requirement of any truly unified understanding of physics.
4) Quantum gravity requires that opposites be combined and balanced. Inertial and gravitational equivalency fundamentally balances attraction and repulsion and fundamentally stabilizes and balances distance in/of space in conjunction with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic/inertial energy. Quantum gravity requires that space be both visible and invisible, in a balanced fashion. Here we unify gravity and electromagnetism. Quantum gravity requires that space be flattened/contracted AND stretched/expanded in keeping with balanced attraction and repulsion and gravitational/inertial equivalency.
5) Invisible and visible space must be merged and balanced in keeping with balanced attraction and repulsion in order to fundamentally stabilize and balance distance in/of space inertially and gravitationally so that electromagnetism and gravity may be unified.
6) Inertia and gravity must be fundamentally equivalent in order to truly unify gravity and electromagnetism.
7) There is a reduced ability to understand astronomical/telescopic observations BECAUSE they are creations of thought. Try to understand this in relation to both television and dream vision.
Good luck with your work.
