The Discreet Charm of the Discrete by Paul Halpern

Paul,

I suppose it wouldn't be a wave, if there was no distance between peaks. Frankly I have no problem with it, as I do feel the singularity based Big Bang theory is a misinterpretation of data and has required some rather far fetched patches to repair, but I go into that in my essay. I think we can explain the effect of both expansion and gravitational contraction as effects of that quantum foam, but that the foundational state is the vacuum, not the point.. This is starting to get a bit off topic though. I would have to say that a singularity based cosmology would have to presume an analog universe, since it would emerge from that singular entity.

Time will tell on this, though. So far, they have found galaxies as old as 13.2 billion lightyears out and it takes quite a bit of physical calisthenics to figure out how something that large could have formed in 500 million years, but I find it is a waste of time to argue, so I'm waiting until they find something 500 million lightyears further out.

PS, Congratulations on making the finalists.

Dear Paul,

I just wanted to personally thank you for making a concerted effort to read and respond to many of the essays. Many of the authors with similar credentials to yours, didn't seem to make much of an effort. I is always nice to get positive feedback from someone such as yourself. I realize that everyone is busy and have other obligations, that makes your efforts all the more commendable. I didn't realize, until becoming an author, myself, how exhausting a process it is to evaluate the myriad of different ideas contained in the essays. This is an obligation I took seriously regardless of the bio of the author. It is obvious that you considered it seriously also. Congratulations, on making it to the judging, but after reading your essay, I considered it a foregone conclusion.

Have a great day,

Dan

Dear Paul,

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

Hi Paul,

My idea of a field is a pattern of flux density of gravitons. I don't think in terms of a 'fabric' of spacetime at all incidentally. I have the mental picture of p.i.e.s (particles in empty space). The forces of the electric field are due to the mechanical dynamics and internal structure of the proton. The arrangement of protons throughout a larger crystal structure lattice can lead to a field formation of stronger graviton flux density helical pattern. The arrangement of neutrons as well can lead to the magnetic field flux pattern at a larger scale. The equations are to be had, but a visual representation is my ultimate goal.

Kind regards,

Alan

Dear Paul,

Congrats for standing fifth on the list.If you have done that it is bacause of the simplicity and originality with which your essay appealed to the participants.

Thanking you once again

Sreenath.

Sir,

Newton's law was also "one of the most successful theories in modern physics and has been verified again and again". Then should we continue with it alone? If not, your reply is not justified. It is not science, but superstition. We expect you to be a scientist and not superstitious.

We may be wrong. But as a scientist you must prove it wrong. Simple denial is no science. Kindly prove where we are wrong.

Incidentally, we are not alone in finding fault with SR. A growing number of scientists the world over are supporting our views. In fact a large number of participants in this competition have accepted our views. You will find it at various threads.

Hence kindly explain which part of our view is wrong and how? Otherwise, kindly accept our views in true scientific spirit.

Regards,

basudeba.

Hi Paul,

Yes, the idea needs a fuller expansion but I'm confident it can explain them all away. As to the orginal quandry of Mercury's orbit, this can be explained by the 'inclination hypothesis' i.e. that gravity is stronger towards the plane of rotation of a celestial body. I'm working on it at this moment.

Kind regards,

Alan

Dear Sir,

We asked a specific question: "kindly explain which part of our view is wrong and how?" It is still unanswered. If we are correct, then your description is wrong. Hence kindly reply to our query specifically.

The time dilation report with the atomic clock experiment was fudged and there is proof for this since the original records are still available in the Archives. The Eddington's expedition report was also fudged and sometime ago it was a much debated topic. The other experimental results can be explained differently. Relativistic mass increase is based on the concept of inertial mass increase, which has never been verified. Thus, it is still a postulate. Thus, you are relying only on wrong notions.

Please do not take it as our arrogance. We are discussing foundational questions. Hence our foundations must be strong. Hence kindly prove us wrong or discard your wrong notions.

Regards,

basudeba.

Paul,

No fair salting the discussion with facts.

Tom

Hello,

I was surprised I didn't see a reference to the work of Y. JACK NG in your paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0403/0403057v1.pdf

Regardless, the idea of photons "moving" in steps is peculiar, to say the least. I personally think it is naive. Dr. Baez says:

"If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalisable; also, charge conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

If the photon has no mass then it can only move continuously. If it turns out that it has a very small, finite mass, then the universe would need virtually infinite energy to accelerate and stop all the photon so that they move in steps, unless this energy comes from somewhere else, in which case your model breaks down.