Subtext: Is Reality Digital or Analog? (Our Universe, Science and Potentials in Review) by Russ W Otter

Dear Basudeba,

My congratulations to you and your colleagues, by both way of your review of my essay, and to your own out of the box sense of intuitive logic, coupled with your science to push the envelope of knowledge.

Your reply is both a personal edification and a challenge for me to explain, myself with the due respect you and your colleagues most certainly deserve.

First: I am not a physicist, nor am I a mathematician of any significance, but my suppositions are based on an A = A logic, that I have spent nearly 60 years wrestling with. Albeit, the Cosmos as I have written about is anything but A=A. It is an anomaly, as I believe it is required to be. Otherwise, I believe we would be deceiving ourselves to define an unbounded open system as one that is closed.

Actually, at times I have to get up and run to break the intuitive insights, that in a sense trap me (Claustrophobic in nature) in this absolute conundrum, we call existence, and have been and will be infinitely bound too. The philosophical question often becomes: "What's the Point?" And in fact we are Trapped, by a system of the infinitely impossible. Forever and Forever. It bears a haunting mental impression upon me from time to time.

So I am very serious about my understandings, albeit not of the stellar work you have done working out a proof you believe in. Even as I question its assumptions in the following paragraphs. In fact, if I am accurately getting my head around it, it actually proves my point: "That infinity is beyond the scope of mathematics, as you appear to have used "Time" along with measurement to validate it through an ongoing basis, which is a dynamic description, not a static definition. As a quantity you appear to make it grow or it is born anew upon extended discovery. Very respectfully that is an assumption, not a proof.

Additionally, you seem to use relativistic mathematics to assume a "Scalar" absolute for all objects. If "Entanglement" is true, then scalar mathematics is not appropriate, as the pragmatic fact of "Locality" breeches a "spectrum" if you will of length. I too believe all things are based on a spectrum or scalar foundation, but I have no concrete answer to Superposition's or Entanglements, save that they may defy our known levels of scalar measurement's. They may be 10 billions times smaller than a Planck's constant, but appear as relative objects. Who Knows?

NOTE: The type 's of mathematics we use Euclidian or Quantum Geometry, or new mathematics' of the future may change everything. But infinity is not one of them. For me, it is as immutable as Time and Space. And just as unexplainable, other than by defining it - as an ongoing process. But that to me confines it, and infinity has no boundaries. If it did what would be on the other side of it? This is an infinite loop built into a question. And it may have the brilliance of your minds to attempt to make it fit into a round hole, but it will not, and cannot. Not in the bigger scope of things we are infinitely bound by. No one can identify the Alpha, nor the Omega in Time, Space or Infinity. Is the Alpha a mere quad-trillion years hence? Or 100 to the 100th power more? It is not even a mathematical reality. It is obscure as it must be. To pin point it as otherwise is a misconception, by an infinite obsurity.

I would love to understand in better terms, what I may be missing in your wonderful reply, but I am stuck in my own Lambda = confusion. I guess? I do believe you have explained infinity and possibly it's counter-part of the Quantum continuum in a process of what I would call "ongoing discovery". That is worthy of superior note. I have no question about it. By the way, your comment about "A surprised Eddington: You even further solidify my argument, by suggesting a "scale" is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require and infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light. NOTE: Anytime we inject an infinite number mathematics and explanation comes to a halt, save for the meta expressions...

By the way, your response is beyond my total comprehension, but I believe I understand the core of your comments... At least I hope so.

Again I very much applaud your research, your willingness to step away from the knowledge of the past, and stand on your own shoulders, albeit with the help of history as well. But your independent out-of -the-box thinking is much appreciated, and where we need to move - as science finds its way to improve both our human knowledge and humanity itself.

Now regarding your comments about Energy. I am a little confused as I really stepped out-of-the-box to describe the use of Energy (Liner) combined with Energy (Non-Liner) to equal increased Energy, which will as normal energy does, atrophy with time. But the outcome of using natural energies, such as Electrostatics, Magnetism, and Gravity, hold a game changer for the planet. For improving communication among peoples of the world and to a better world [Period.] I have several ways I have designed this in my head over the years, and hope to find the right physicists to work with someday to pursue it.

This is not using typical "Action = Reaction" or "Like for Like" energy and matter, but changes the formula: E = E(*). Note Gravity in a non-linear mode multiples itself.

This is doable, and surprising we have not achieved it as of yet. Of course given my concepts are correct. And that is a small issue to me, but I know a heresy to a very though crowd of physicists by and large.

Again, Basudeba and your colleagues... Many Thanks. Your response was a true edification for myself.

If I can clarify anything: Ask away... Thanks very much again, Russ

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your response. You are unnecessarily being highly differential. Like you, we are neither a scientists nor a mathematician - not even an academician. We have only some amateur interest in science among other subjects.

We find more similarities than differences in our views. Only we stretch some areas much more, which appears different at first instance. Additionally, our mode of presentation and use of language increases the appearance of difference.

You say: If Entanglement is true, then scalar mathematics is not appropriate, as the pragmatic fact of Locality breeches a spectrum if you will of length.

Possibly we are expressing the same view in a different language. Mathematics is related only to the numbers of particles (or subsystems) and not their interaction or displacement. Entanglement is related to their intrinsic relationship. As we have said earlier, particles are nothing but confined fields. Confinement implies a central point (nucleus or center of mass) around which the mass concentrates due to confinement (orbitals). Thus, there is a coupling between the two mediated by a force. Entanglement is related to this mediating force. Since energy does not have a nucleus or center of mass, it does not have a fixed structure. Hence it is always dynamic unless it is contained within some container. Here also, it interacts with the container at the surface while there is no such interaction at other places. This leads to a chain reaction leading to further destabilization. Thus, energy is always mobile. All measurements are done at "here-now", which is a fixed position in some frame of reference. Numbers are associated with it, as measurement is a comparison between similars and numbers are the characteristic of objects by which we differentiate between similars. Thus, obviously, scalar mathematics is not appropriate in the case of entanglement.

Just like a fluid flows or seeps through a porous container and not through a solid one, the energy associated with the quantum particles can flow (entanglement) or seep through (quantum tunneling) macro particles. Since all objects display a three fold structure (nucleus, orbitals or confinement and the extra-nuclear field), any release of energy in one direction will be associated with the absorption of equivalent energy in the opposite direction, which will generate chain reactions in their surrounding fields. Since particles have parallel and anti-parallel spins, the release of energy by a pair with opposite spins will induce similar reactions in opposite directions. This is known as entanglement. However, like the socks example given earlier, till one particle's spin is measured, there is no way to know about the spin of either. Thus, there is nothing extraordinary about entanglement. It has unnecessarily been sensationalized. Particles move in the field automatically (in the absence of any induced force) based on the property of the field to attain uniform density. Since the density of the medium through which the energy travels is different from the density of the released energy, it gradually tapers down after a few kilo meters. Alternatively, it loses its own identity and becomes indistinguishable from the field. In both ways, the result is the same.

Action reaction is based on the general property of Nature: inertia of motion and inertia of restoration (elasticity), which appears as stress and impedance and from which we derive all fundamental forces and particles of the Universe.

We have a completely different model by which we explain the Nature without involving complex mathematics, but deriving from fundamental principles. We will publish our work soon.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Basudeba,

I have enjoyed your communications... And you sir as well are very respectfully differential. And -Yes, Language is a fickle road, we are confined within, and it unnecessarily leads us astray, when in fact we are often on the same journey, in the same space...

A couple of points I would like to make, related to words (language), by which we could handcuff ourselves for days, such as "scalar", "containment", and so forth.

You thoughtfully debunk or content an agreement that "scalar" is not a part of entanglement. Well if we are speaking about classical relative distances then it is scalar, but if we are proposing a unification of all matter, devoid of relative distances (as the classical world behaves), at all times ( save perhaps - or in this case of entangled particles), then no it is not scalar. * My point was to identify it as a classical relative distance and point out that it "behaved" without a scalar component, i.e., it was behaving locally.

If I understand you position, you are suggesting that you have an answer to this dilemma which would seem to bridge the larger questions of "infinity" into an understandable format or concept. If so, then congratulations, as I do not fault the ability to understand, but I will question the ability to answer such things as the "Alpha" (Beginning). It is not attainable. Nor could any computer the size of the galaxy, not exhaust itself in futility, with such a question.

That conundrum of the unknown, gives us our existence, as how else could it be otherwise. This is a puzzle which suggests we are all the same, and yet all different, all within the same space and time. A puzzle in which my mind literally bleeds!

Additionally, you mentioned "containment." I would suggest that containment is a multiple meaning word. One for the "finite" Classical Relative world, and one within "Infinity". We are contained within infinity, but that form of containment, has no center-point, that would hence not make infinity a proper definition. [Infinity is boundless and extend-less, thus no center-point]. It is incumbent that it makes no sense to a finite understanding, but it is a confinement (of its own right) all the same. And we are in it. And center-pointless.] Finite terminologies constrict us, when defining any infinity, save making us crazy trying to do it, or burning out a galaxy sized computer.

I get a sound sense I believe where you are headed, and I will be the first to acknowledge its value to help solve some fundamental unknowns, but respectfully, I can never envision it solving the largest of questions: That of: When we began, or when we end. Both of which are questions that are actually oxymoron's.

Look forward to hopefully seeing your paper someday in the future! Thank you again for your most thoughtful replies...

Cheers, Russ

Dear Sir,

You are absolutely right on your fundamental question: 'When we began, or when we end'. In absolute terms, there is no answer to this question. But then, our essay offers a partial solution to this conundrum. We are concerned about the 'present' that affect us. For us, this 'present' stretches in cycles - each cycle with a beginning and an end. These are evident in all aspects of Nature. While the cycle is one, every segment of it is subdivided into past, present and future in a relativistic manner. The number of such cycles are infinite and we can never fathom it. But we can manage without this information. All we can focus on is the present cycle, which is a digital segment of the analog infinity. If you take a bucket of water from the ocean, it is real. By this way you cannot measure the ocean. But it does not affect the reality of the bucketful of water, with which we are concerned. In general, the principle is: there is no 'many' in 'one'. But without 'one' there cannot be 'many'. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, there is no difference how you describe it. When you are referring to 'one', you are right. When you are referring to 'many', you are also right. Thus, though 'Alpha' is not attainable, it does not make any difference.

We did not 'debunk or content an agreement that "scalar" is not a part of entanglement'. What we meant is that scalar implies directionless fixedity - whereas entanglement implies a mobile relationship. Thus, they cannot be used in unison. Regarding relative distance, we had shown that Einstein's description of length contraction in moving bodies and his mathematics are both wrong. But relative distances are facts of life that do affect us. To that extent, it behaves locally.

You are absolutely correct that containment is a multiple meaning word and that there cannot be a center point in infinity. We were talking not about many, but one. The one can come out of infinity as a designated segment. This segment and not the infinite is contained and has a center. Otherwise, it would not be one. We agree that finite terminologies constrict us. But we are just that - constrained in time and space. Without these constraints, we have no existence. But this does not affect the Infinity. We are a segment of infinity. Infinity is a segment of us.

Sir,

We start from the Infinity and come to this constrained existence following Natural principles and Natural mathematics. Intentionally, we have kept ourselves away from the complex modern 'mathematics', which are really not needed to explain reality, but only manipulated to spread the cult of incomprehensibility to perpetuate one's greatness and lead a cozy life at public expenses. Such mathematics fails the test of logical consistency. Hence we call such descriptions un-mathematical. Modern system of education crams data in the minds of students and the rat race for excellence leaves no time for the students to reflect on the true meaning of what they have been taught. Thus, it makes them blindly believe what has been told to them. Modern scientists are the biggest lot of superstitious persons. But then it is they who decide the course of education and science!

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Basudeba,

We are largely in agreement, based on this last reply. Infinity is not definable, and actually not important, relative to the moment in which we exist and cycle through time and no doubt time and time again, in some form or another.

So I defer to you and your premise. However Not all students are under the guise of a constrained training. NOTE: You probably know that as well. Even more so today, given the openness of thought that is growing, as the physicists, or rather the titans of the past have provided some foundations, they are not without exceptions or complete alteration, as new students move forward with the promise of open and truer knowledge and thought.

I fully agree that many of the past shoulders of knowledge are of limited value, given limited knowledge at the time of a past long gone by.

Therefore "invented knowledge" is largely the history of our past, and the superstition's you spoke of that go along with that subjective knowledge; we do still base much of our current truths upon. Errantly in some cases, but not all cases, I would venture to safely assume.

The ship we both sail is headed toward the same destination...

Thanks again for your illuminating thoughts... And again every good wish toward your final summation in the near future.

Thanks very much once again, Russ

PS... When you publish, I hope you might include me in a notice: russotter@verizon.net

Thank you Sir,

We will definitely remember.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

We had posted a comment below the Essay of Mr. Armin Nikkhah Shirazi. We think you will be interested in it. Hence we are posting a copy here.

The validity of a physical statement rests with its correspondence to reality. We do not see how this condition could be satisfied in the description of Mr. Armin Nikkhah Shirazi's area-time.

He has correctly described the relationship of Area that is related to two dimensional fields and Volume that is related to three dimensional structures. Both are related to the radius r or rather d or 2r. When r is reduced, obviously both are proportionately reduced. But it does not make a sphere (a three dimensional structure) flat, i.e., a circle (a two dimensional structure). Appearance may or may not be reality. We have shown in our essay that what we see is not the same as what we measure. The difference can be shown mathematically as follows:

Write down the formula for the Volume and Surface Area of the Sphere. Here the numbers 4/3 and 4 respectively and pi are constants. The only variable is r. Both vary according to the variations of r. Thus, these variations are proportionate and depend upon the value of r.

Now divide both the formulae by 4 pi r^2.

The result: r/3 varies with one.

Or r varies with 3.

This means that for every increase of r by unity, circumference of the sphere increases by 3, whereas we know that it actually increases by pi or 3.141.... Since circumference of the sphere is related to the diameter of the cylinder containing the sphere, which is used to determine the values of the Volume and Surface Area of the sphere, it is also related to the Volume and Surface Area of the sphere. Thus, there is an anomaly. The other mathematical derivations of the values of the Volume and Surface Area of the sphere are also not strictly exact, but near approximations. Thus, the anomaly is not explained by these.

The anomaly is further reinforced by the size of the radius of atoms using a scanning tunneling microscope. On the periodic table of the elements, atomic radius size tends to increase when moving down columns (periods), but decrease when moving across rows (groups). While the increase in size with increase in period is understandable, the decrease in size with increase in group Number has not been satisfactorily explained. We explain those differently, which also solves the anomaly of pi vs 3 and derives the value of pi from fundamental principles.

We treat gravity not as a force that pulls, but a force that stabilizes - be it the atomic orbit or the planetary orbits. We also treat gravity not as a single force but as a composite force of 7, which we derive from fundamental principles. These 7 forces five rise to the 7 periods. Each atom also has these 7 varieties of gravity in it, which regulates its internal dynamics. Their inter-relationship is reveled from the inter-relationship of the energy levels of the s, p, d and f orbitals. As we have derived earlier, r varies as 3. The r is determined by these 7 forces collectively. Thus, the atom has a 7 x 3 = 21 layered structure. While this constitutes the nucleus, the electrons that confine these fall into a different category. The nucleus part is subject to fermionic rules of exclusion. But the electron orbits are subject to the bosonic principle of superposition. Thus, the bigger the atomic number, the bigger the force of confinement. The electron sea is responsible for our perception of the object. But since they do not have a fixed structure like the nuclear part, they are not apparent in measurement. This explains the ratio r varies with (21/7) 3. This also explains the perceived value of pi as (22/7) 3.141...

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Russ,

Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge for all the we know is just an imagination chosen wisely.

Please read Theory of everything at your convenience posted by me in this contest.

Who am I? I am virtual reality, I is absolute truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Basudeba,

You sir, are going to blow my head up! This is indeed on a mathematical level heady stuff, but on a practical or intuitive, as practical or intuitive can be given our implicit set of existences (ontology, and physical reality) or finite and the infinite, we are again - a twain that shall not meet.

Simply ask the test question: "When is "Alpha"? No answer is pending.

The essay by "Shirazi" is obviously brilliant, and attempts to do what we all should do, and that is find the hidden links between ontology and physical reality. But even in his conclusion, he makes no claim of doing any such thing. He only suggests this may be a starting point.

One particular issue is the concept of area-time or area without volume. How is that actually accomplished? As a 2 dimensional world still has volume. Some of the assumptions are based on some things we know, but also on "unknowns, but it perhaps, simply needs to be worded differently to be even more succinct.

Many of "Shirazi's" assumptions or logical assumptions, are still assumptions. I enjoyed his essay and his firm work as it challenged, in my mind, "Special Relativity" and many of the heretofore assumptions we hold as sacrosanct, and may have miles to go before they are fully baked... Within our modern day physics, as you know, our current guidelines we key off of several errant premises, to our loss.

As I still argue that E = E(*), and that Schr¨odinger's cat analogy is flawed as it uses a classical sized cat, with a precept, based on quantum mechanics. The two (Macro/Micro) do not to my knowledge play well together, and when we do that we are often led astray. So "Stray Cat" find a good home someday in reality - I hope. But stay out of the formula for which you are named.

Again, I do not see any conclusive or even the suggestion of a conclusion which would tie our two paradigms of the infinite and the finite together.

But the effort is highly noteworthy to me. The possibility of zero volume is a philosophical fact, but not a mathematical one. Zero volume portends of a singularity, and that is not even an assumption we can prove. Whereby zero volume is as possibly a duality of all volume at the same moment, as well - within the infinite.

Again, I think his paper is exceedingly well done, and opens up new challenges to pursue, but as for "Ontology and Quantum Wave Collapse" bridging our knowledge to encompass the infinite. NO. By definition, the infinite will defy all finite explanation. If it does ever so-called lend itself to a definition, then - it is no longer infinite.

Thanks again for your thoughts,

Russ

Dear Basudeba,

You sir, are going to blow my head up! This is indeed on a mathematical level heady stuff, but on a practical or intuitive, as practical or intuitive can be given our implicit set of existences (ontology, and physical reality) or finite and the infinite, we are again - a twain that shall not meet.

Simply ask the test question: "When is "Alpha"? No answer is pending.

The essay by "Shirazi" is obviously brilliant, and attempts to do what we all should do, and that is find the hidden links between ontology and physical reality. But even in his conclusion, he makes no claim of doing any such thing. He only suggests this may be a starting point.

One particular issue is the concept of area-time or area without volume. How is that actually accomplished? As a 2 dimensional world still has volume. Some of the assumptions are based on some things we know, but also on "unknowns, but it perhaps, simply needs to be worded differently to be even more succinct.

Many of "Shirazi's" assumptions or logical assumptions, are still assumptions. I enjoyed his essay and his firm work as it challenged, in my mind, "Special Relativity" and many of the heretofore assumptions we hold as sacrosanct, and may have miles to go before they are fully baked... Within our modern day physics, as you know, our current guidelines we key off of several errant premises, to our loss.

As I still argue that E = E(*), and that Schr¨odinger's cat analogy is flawed as it uses a classical sized cat, with a precept, based on quantum mechanics. The two (Macro/Micro) do not to my knowledge play well together, and when we do that we are often led astray. So "Stray Cat" find a good home someday in reality - I hope. But stay out of the formula for which you are named.

Again, I do not see any conclusive or even the suggestion of a conclusion which would tie our two paradigms of the infinite and the finite together.

But the effort is highly noteworthy to me. The possibility of zero volume is a philosophical fact, but not a mathematical one. Zero volume portends of a singularity, and that is not even an assumption we can prove. Whereby zero volume is as possibly a duality of all volume at the same moment, as well - within the infinite.

Again, I think his paper is exceedingly well done, and opens up new challenges to pursue, but as for "Ontology and Quantum Wave Collapse" bridging our knowledge to encompass the infinite. NO. By definition, the infinite will defy all finite explanation. If it does ever so-called lend itself to a definition, then - it is no longer infinite.

Thanks again for your thoughts,

Russ

Dear Russ,

Thank you for your kind words and understanding. I hope and dream that humanity gets wiser and uses its imagination for greater good of all beings on this planet going forward. But looking at things as they are now, I fear it could be other way around and humanity will lead towards total destruction of fragile life on this planet. As you said I am just another soul who has experienced life and made some observations and expressed them as several many great people before. With this knowledge at hand I wish to do my part before departing from here to encourage as many as possible to start loving and caring for life as a whole.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Sridattadev,

Wonderfully said... My hopes are with you and your disposition.

With kindness always,

Russ

Dear Sir,

We are amused to read your "we are again - a twain that shall not meet" comment. We have a different view on this issue.

We think we are looking at and describing the same thing from different angles. The only difference is the approach. You are taking a person and describing his ancestors by going backwards. We have taken the ancestor and moving towards the same person through successive generations. Thus, while we could see lot of relatives, you are focused only on one line.

As we have told earlier, we do not treat the micro and the macro worlds differently. An article that appeared in the October 2005 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society also proves us right when it shows that the theory of dynamical systems used to plan the trajectories of spacecrafts and the theory of transition states in chemical reactions share the same set of mathematics. We explain all quantum phenomenon with its macro equivalents. Since you leave aside the 'relatives' and focus only on the 'ancestry', you miss our point. But ultimately, we both reach the same destination.

One example is your statement: "As a 2 dimensional world still has volume." Looking at it in isolation, we would contradict it as two dimension represents area and not volume, which is a feature of three dimensional objects. The notation for area contains second order descriptions, whereas the description of volume contains third order descriptions. But if you are looking at the two dimensional picture of or looking at one surface of a three dimensional object, then obviously you are not wrong.

Similarly, you do not mix conscious actions with mechanical actions. We think both follow the same mechanical process for the action part. Only at causality, both differ, though there is no difference in the effect part, which is deterministic.

So, the twain shall meet at some point of time.

Regards,

basudeba.

P.S. We extend the same "heady" mathematical stuff further to theoretically derive the value of the fine structure constant alpha at the so-called zero energy level and 80 GeV level. Our values for these are 7/960 (1/137) and 7/900 (1/128) respectively.

Dear Basudeba,

I am absolutist when it comes to a "Twain that shall never meet", until someone explains how the "Finite" and "Infinite" are of the same disciplines.

They are not, from everything I know in my deepest of intuition, or from the deepest of mathematical principles.

However, they may meet by way of philosophical beliefs or faith, however beyond that reality, I must agree we do depart.

I am not saying that I am right or correct, as I do not know everything, but short of some knowledge that shows me otherwise, I must defer to my own common sense and knowledge of reality.

As to your reference of me only referring to the "ancestors", I believe I am assuming you mean to question my thoughts about: "The question regarding the "Alpha" or beginning. But I also include the "Omega" as well.

If I am correct you derive this from the comment that "You are only focused on one line", in paragraph two.

My focus is far more "Universal" (or from all lines or all volumes 2D or 3D.)

As you noted from an article in October of 2005, that the micro and macro worlds on a chemical basis proves you right, that those two systems are the same mathematically, does not in my view endeavor to indicate that the "Finite" or the "Infinite" are the same in language or structure. Even though they may have some similarity, that still becomes an assumptive far-reach to equate them as the same. Or as you and I mentioned a "Twain that shall Never Meet." For me that is truth on a mathematical level, but perhaps not on a philosophical level.

Your comments about volume have merit. However, in point of fact, outside of conventional mathematics or traditional assumptions, a linear line still has volume, anyway you slice it. NOTE: It does not take three-dimension's to create mass or volume, instinctively speaking... Truthfully a linear line is actually three dimensional, depending on your measuring requirements (point of reference.) A two-dimensional design to some observer, is actually a three-dimensional design to another observer. It all depends on the size you are viewing. This is a rub or problem, which very few will admit too. But the truth remains. Much as "Infinity" is "Infinity" and the "Finite" is the "Finite."

You also make a good point about "Determinism" , however you mix philosophy with mathematics, as I understand it, and in so doing, you may be correct. But only from an un-scientific philosophical, and even perhaps a correct point of view. But not from a point of view that is measurable or within the purview of a proof. On that point - I cannot concede any truth or value.

• I still hope you will include me in your summation of the document you are working on, as it may have some illuminating aspects that will enlighten me. However, as you can tell I am a hard nut to crack... But I thank you for your diligent and thoughtful work. As this is how we progress for the better...

This is fun stuff we are discussing, and I appreciate your perspectives... I am learning from our discourse. And I thank you...

Sincerely, Russ

Rus

I enjoyed your essay, thank you. and agree you have identified a number of vary salient points and truisms seemingly lost to current physics. I then noticed that, like me, you're not a physicist, which helps explain that! I too have always loved Cosmology, and really wonder sometimes how on earth (pun?) cosmology can be 'taught'. As a non physicist it deserves a high score. I particularly agreed with your comment;

"The current notion of SpaceTime is highly likely askew.. I would suggest that All things are quantized: Remember even a straight line or circles are arguably a combination of bits. So whether gravity, as well as space and time are quantized at a sub-atomic micro-level, and or a macro-level, or perhaps morph in the process, or not: Please remember that Natural Forces are created equal at a base level, even as Space and Time are constants within both infinity and a finite existence."

I also hope you'll read mine, which develops this to the ultimate extent and derives a falsifiable model producing both SR and GR with a quantum mechanism. But I'm surrounded by professional physicists and struggling so if you like mine please do return the compliment. If you want to understand the model read carefully and be prepared to stretch your conceptual dynamic visualisation skill. You may also enjoy reading the thought experiments in the string if necessary.

Thanks, and best of luck

Peter

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. I clearly enjoy the fact that you, like myself are not a physicist. However, my friend, (if I can be so familiar), you have demonstrated a highly evolved understanding of both physics as well as a depth of mathematics. Congratulation's...

Your essay is detailed and should be acknowledged as such for its technical prowess from a beginning to an end with the technical capabilities afforded the very few in this world.

Your comment: " Separate disciplines are imposed by man yet all nature must be connected." Is a profound perspective for those who grasp the open ended nature of your work. And you do attempt to be open-ended in some of your conclusions or suppositions. That is all to the good. From my perspective. It opens doors to all of us to pursue.

I too as you know, question the historical shoulders, we have built ourselves upon. And your understanding of "dielectric" science, interests me a great deal, as you may have noted that I do believe in "Natural Energies" (Electrostatics, Magnetism, and Gravity) as a means to develop via both linear and non-linear structures virtually continuous motion. Albeit you mention that M=E, I still maintain that Natural E = E(*) regressing to M :As M=E is true, it is not exclusive, given dimensional and natural forces in combination with 2 dimensional leverage. Hence 1 = 2, then regresses to 0, then repeats itself again and again...

If you ever what to pursue this please contact me at: russotter@verizon.net

Again, Your Essay as many others I have read - is detailed and brilliant. I am sure you enjoy your mastery of the greatest field of knowledge: Physics...

All the best to you - Most Sincerely, And Thank you for Sharing...

Russ

Dear Sir,

We stand by our comments mathematically and not philosophically provided your mathematics is natural and not manipulative. You say: "Infinity" is "Infinity" and the "Finite" is the "Finite." We also say the same thing. Infinity is not a big number. At many places we have explained the scientifically proper definition of infinity and said that no mathematics is possible using infinity. However, different infinities like time and space co-exist. Mathematics is for finite sets only.

You say: "a linear line still has volume, anyway you slice it." But what is a linear line? It is the distance between two points. Two points on what? Obviously on some object that has mass, which means it has volume. Thus your description of slicing the line actually means slicing the object on which the line has been drawn, as the line has no separate identity of its own. Thus, your statement does not contradict ours.

You say: "a linear line is actually three dimensional, depending on your measuring requirements (point of reference.) A two-dimensional design to some observer is actually a three-dimensional design to another observer. It all depends on the size you are viewing." The moment you talk of size, you imply distances, areas and volumes respectively of one, two and three dimensional objects. Since these dimensions are not exclusive, but the lesser dimension is contained in the higher dimension, a three dimensional object can have distance and area also. To this extent you do not contradict us. These are proven facts. But can you show the volume of the distance between two points on two adjacent hill tops?

We have shown that left hand side of any equation (physical theory or chemical reaction) denotes free-will as we are free to choose the parameters. But the right hand side is deterministic, as once all the parameters are chosen, they behave according to fixed rules. Surely you will not dispute that an equation is not mathematics but un-scientific philosophy. The result of the equation is certainly "measurable or within the purview of a proof". Thus the twain meet.

It is easy to explain something to someone who is ignorant. It is impossible to explain something to someone who has limited knowledge and a closed mind. But it is intellectually stimulating to convince a seeker of truth with an open mind about the validity or truth content of a theory. We are confident that THE TWAIN WILL MEET.

We have posted something below the Essay of Mr. B.N. SREENATH. This is relating to why gravity cannot be integrated with other fundamental forces of Nature and the mechanism of particle formation. You may like to see it.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Basudeba,

Thank you once again for keeping me on my toes... Your reply, in the first 4 paragraphs, demonstrates your sound understanding, and well written capabilities to grasp a concept and delineate it with great perception.

Your paragraph 5 shows your great sense of thoughtfulness, wisdom, and humor as well. I hope I land somewhere is the better part of that paragraph!

We indeed are on the same page based on your reply. The problem may solely rest with me, in my explaining of "The Twain that Shall Never Meet." (At least I hope.) So without reviewing my previous words on this phrase, I will take a fresh start at it:

When I speak of the "Infinite" and "Finite", I am speaking about 2 elements of existence that co-exist, but are of distinctions, that have no conscious relationship to one another, other than as you stated, perhaps Time and Space. But because two entities have like qualities does not necessitate commonality and or sameness.

I know you believe these to be separate elements, but I assume you believe that they marry-up in a common form of consciousness or perhaps even a mathematical proof, not yet discovered, or in some other form of consciousness not yet understood. If you do believe that? A-OK. I just simply do not. Albeit they are partners of our existence, they are in poetic terms, and could no doubt be said in better terms: "A Twain that will never Meet." I believe that. Please let me try to explain why:

Somewhere in my previous rhetoric, I must has paraphrased that the "Infinite" by definition cannot, will not, and must not be defined, by sentient beings. As to do so would be to circumscribe and limit it, therefore it cannot be infinite. And believe me - I have spent unending days and nights trying to understand infinity over my life time (That of Time and Space (part and parcel.))

The Proof is this:

1. Sentient Beings are "Finite and for sake of argument co-exist in the "Infinite", (as Finite things are the result of the Infinite) However since sentient "finite objects" live within the infinite, they are not the infinite, otherwise, they would be of a duality (Finite and Infinite). Dualities are not and cannot be "Infinite".

a. Hence Proof number 1 is an Absolute that cannot violate itself.

2. Infinity by definition, has no center-point, is boundless, has no beginning and no end, hence it will never be understood by a sentient mind, by mathematics or philosophy, as this would violate both Proof 1 and 2.

3. I want to also note that within an "infinite" existence, there can be no love, no joy, no pain, no knowledge, no ego. As to apply any attribute to the infinite, is to limit it and define it. And that which cannot be understood cannot be defined in our conventional terms. Such as A = A. Again, such provinces of mathematics exist solely to the "Finite" species.

4. Infinity is Impossible to all Logic: For instance: No Alpha, No Omega. [COME ON -How does that make any logical sense?] However the inverse of that is the "Finite", which grows and lives by way of hopeful logic, along with selfishness and illogic as well. But the decent goal for sentient beings is the "Golden Rule" and the growth of Knowledge to better humanities health and caring. But again, I begin to digress. But logic keeps on track, for which the "Infinite" and the "Finite" are of such implicit opposites, that they co-exist, but can never, will never and must never meet. "Just to repeat myself."

When dealing with the "Infinite" and the "Finite" we lose the ability to have a left hand and a right hand proof, since they are not able to communicate by logic or reason.

Therefore this is a "Twain That Shall Never Meet.

We live within this imponderable unknown of life itself. Both of the Finite (conscious, ego and boundaries) and Infinite (unconscious, no ego, and no boundaries).

So Co-Exsist, I will concede, but Meet, or understand the infinite from a finite life form. Just does not add up!

Cheers, Russ

PS... Thank you for the reference to read Mr. B.N. Sreenath. I have not do that yet, but will soon. Thanks much...

Dear Sir,

Friendship arises between person who share a common purpose in life and common approach to life. Both us have this commonality. Hence the twain shall meet.

We fully agree with your descriptions of infinity and respect you for raising such fundamental questions. The only problem is you are looking at a segment of a vast expanse that gives you a different impression about its true nature. We have answers for all your queries. However, it is not the opportune time to discuss it fully. We are refraining from discussing it partially lest it may be misunderstood. As you have seen, we are giving an alternative explanation of most phenomenon. Unless you are conversant with our concepts, you will mix it up with your other concepts and think that what we are talking does not make sense. Clearly, we are talking about an alternative science, which is conceptually complete by itself, though we cannot say that about its application. We have a detailed mechanism by which we can explain the creation in its entirety including consciousness or as you say sentient beings. We derive all fundamental forces of Nature from one self-sustaining mechanism or principle and explain structure formation to evolution of energy, matter, life forms and all. We will publish it soon. Till such time please bear with us.

We know that the twain shall meet then.

Regards,

basudeba.