Dear Sir,
Mr. Peter Jackson, one of the finalists had asked us some clarifications. We think it may be of interest to you. Hence we post the reply to him below your Essay.
First let us answer to your question regarding how direct observation could be different. Since you are fond of spectroscopy, we will give you an example from that branch. Look at the mechanism behind the emission spectra and absorption spectra. Both the emitter and the observer are in the same bigger frame of reference linking both and separated by the field. You will admit that the scattering in the medium causes the difference.
You say: "direct light hitting the eye is also scattered." In our theory, different forces co-exist. Thus, it is not scattering, but comparison like when we measure (compare) the length of a rod by a scale. The scale is not scattered by the rod. When you say "it can be apparent when we move", you are falling into the trap laid by Einstein. We have discussed it elaborately earlier by giving the example of Eddington.
You have not defined dark matter or dark energy precisely. The phenomena cited by you as proof is indirect and not direct. We can explain those phenomena differently. You also admit this possibility indirectly when you say: "The plasma does the precise job our imaginary 'dark matter' does, and in the same places!"
You say: "The references again show that curved space time exactly matches the effects of diffraction (gentle refraction delays and path curvature) via scattering in plasma." We have given our interpretation of "curved space-time", which is different from GR and it can also explain the effects of diffraction equally correctly.
You say: "The separate terms plasma-sphere and ionosphere are really misnomers". But you admit their difference when you say: "they are a graded whole, proton rich low down and electron rich higher up." The grading is not smooth, but shows the same distribution like the arrangement of protons and electrons in an atom. Since protons and electrons are placed differently in nucleus and orbits, the plasma-sphere and ionosphere have to be treated as different. We divide the electric and magnetic fields into four types each based on their gradient. That, along with the interaction with the Solar wind will explain the rest of your comments.
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.
Regarding the 3 frames, you are on the right track. Here we quote from one of our posts under the Essay of Mr. Rafael Emmanuel Castel, where we had commented elaborately about Einstein's 1905 paper.
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:
3. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
4. 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.
Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous", or "synchronous", and of "time". The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.
Our comments: Einstein sets out in the introductory part of his paper: "...the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate...". The "Principle of Relativity" is restricted to comparison of the motion of one frame of reference relative to another. Introduction of a third frame of reference collapses the equations as it no longer remains relativistic. The clock at B has been taken as a privileged frame of reference for comparison of other frames of reference. If privileged frames of reference are acceptable for time measurement, then the same should be applicable for space measurement also, which invalidates the rest of the paper.
Simultaneity refers to occurrence of more than one action sequences, e.g.; events, which measure equal units in two similar action sequence measuring devices, e.g.; clocks, starting from a common reference point, e.g.; an epoch. It is the opposite of successive events. Synchronisation refers to the readings of more than one clock (or interval between event from an epoch), which do not require "clock correction", i.e.; when such readings are compared with a common or identical repetitive action sequence or action sequence measuring devices, their readings match. It is not the opposite of successive events, but can also be simultaneous - for example, two clocks synchronised with each other will give similar readings simultaneously. If one of the clocks give 24 hour reading while the other gives 12 hour reading, then half of the time they will give readings that are synchronized and simultaneous, while half of the time they will not be so. Yet, the results can be made to synchronize by deducting 12 hours from any reading beyond it in the clock giving 24 hours reading. Here the clocks will be synchronized through out, but give simultaneous readings alternatively in succession or otherwise.
In the definition of simultaneity given by Einstein, the two clocks situated at two distant points in the same frame of reference (whether the frame of reference is inertial or not is not relevant as both the clocks and points P and P' are fixed in the frame) are said to be synchronous, if their readings of the identical events in both clocks match. This only refers to the accuracy of mechanical functioning of the clocks and uniformity of the time unit used in both the clocks. This definition is nothing but telling the obvious in a complicated and confusing manner. Since the two clocks are synchronised, they should record equal time in both the frames of reference over equal interval.
We have also shown that if we follow the logic of Einstein, then we will land in a problem like the Russell's paradox of set theory. In one there cannot be many, implying, there cannot be a set of one element or a set of one element is superfluous. There cannot be many without one meaning there cannot be many elements, if there is no set - they would be individual members unrelated to each other as is a necessary condition of a set. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, a collection of objects is either a set with its elements or individual objects, which are not the elements of a set.
Let us examine set theory and consider the property p(x) : x x, which means the defining property p(x) of any element x is such that it does not belong to x. Nothing appears unusual about such a property. Many sets have this property. A library [p(x)] is a collection of books. But a book is not a library (x x). Now, suppose this property defines the set R = {x : x x}. It must be possible to determine if RR or RR. However if RR, then the defining properties of R implies that RR, which contradicts the supposition that RR. Similarly, the supposition RR confers on R the right to be an element of R, again leading to a contradiction. The only possible conclusion is that, the property "x x" cannot define a set. This idea is also known as the Axiom of Separation in Zermelo-Frankel set theory, which postulates that; "Objects can only be composed of other objects" or "Objects shall not contain themselves".
In order to avoid this paradox, it has to be ensured that a set is not a member of itself. It is convenient to choose a "largest" set in any given context called the universal set and confine the study to the elements of such universal set only. This set may vary in different contexts, but in a given set up, the universal set should be so specified that no occasion arises ever to digress from it. Otherwise, there is every danger of colliding with paradoxes such as the Russell paradox, which says that "S is the set of all sets which do not have themselves as a member. Is S a member of itself?" Or as it is put in the everyday language: "A man of Serville is shaved by the Barber of Serville id and only if the man does not shave himself?" Such is the problem in Special theory of Relativity.
Thus, "when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or - what comes to the same thing - to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch", we must refer to a common reference point for time measurement, which means that we have to apply "clock corrections" to individual clocks with reference to a common clock at the time of measurement which will make the readings of all clocks identical. (Einstein has also done it, when he defines synchronization in the para below). This implies that to accurately measure time by some clocks, we must depend upon a preferred clock, whose time has to be fixed with reference to the earlier set of clocks whose time is to be accurately measured. Alternatively, we will land with a set of unrelated events like the cawing of a crow and falling of a ripe date palm simultaneously. A stationery clock and a clock in a moving frame do not experience similar forces acting on them. If the forces acting on them affect the material of the clock, the readings of the clocks cannot be treated as time measurement. Because, in that case, we will land with different time units not related to a repetitive natural event - in other words, they are like individual elements not the members of a set. Hence, the readings cannot be compared to see whether they match or differ. The readings of such clocks can be compared only after applying clock correction to the moving clock. This clock correction has nothing to do with time dilation, but only to the mechanical malfunction of the clock.
There is nothing like empty space. Space, and the universe, is not empty, but full of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation from the Big-Bang. In addition to this, space would also seem to be full of a lot of other wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from low radio frequency to gamma rays. This can be shown by the fact that we are able to observe this radiation across the gaps between galaxies and even across the "voids" that have been identified. Since the universe is regarded as being homogeneous in all directions, it follows that any point in space will have radiation passing through it from every direction, bearing in mind Olber's paradox about infinite quantities etc. The "rips" in space-time that Feynman and others have written about are not currently a scientifically defined phenomenon. They are just a hypothetical concept - something that has not been observed or known to exist. Thus, "light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space" would be affected by these radiations and get distorted.
Regards,
basudeba
