Breaking the Universe's Speed Limit

Okay. I get it. Nothing can possibly be wrong with your argument, so something must be wrong with me.

They're not necessarily exclusive.

I told you I wasn't going to keep trying to kick the ball just so you could pull it away. When I respond to your arguments for the N'th time and you ignore my responses, I've simply decided not to go for N-plus-1.

You have your style of arguing and you have your set beliefs. I don't like your style and I don't agree with your beliefs, and I don't think you are serious about trying to understand my theory. I think you just argue for the sake of argument. I don't think you receive, you only transmit.

If I've judged you wrong, so be it. I've tried to work with you and it's not working.

Dear Edwin,

While you called my essay refreshing, I am not sure whether or not you carefully checked m< arguments and arrived at the same admittedly heretical conclusions.

What about my attempt to understand your gravito-magnetic field and Peter Jackson's claims, I have to admit that only the latter is not trustworthy to me. Admittedly I did not take the effort to read all of the nearly 400 related posts, and I am pretty sure you didn't read the 400 concerning my essay.

Maybe, we can nonetheless support each other by critical remarks. I was a bit deterred by the title of your essay and the introductory figures. Maybe, you shoehorned an alternative to theories that are leading from mere speculations to even more unbelievable speculations into the given topic.

Can you please guide non-physicists like me to an easily understandable explanation of your idea? It could begin with revelations where and why accepted theories might be wrong or at least incomplete, and it should end with at least exemplary indication of consequences. Most important to me is a compelling chain of logic arguments, if necessary supported by means of convincing figures.

It might be exciting for you if newly reported results of scientific research fit into your argumentation. However, those like me who are not familiar with the matter cannot decide whether the offered interpretation is correct. Almost anything could be turned into a confirming evidence for God, Lorentz contraction, or the final victories of Wehrmacht and communism.

Regards,

Eckard

Receive this: I speak to your arguments. You reply with remarks about my person. Transmission complete.

Tom,

You ignore my arguments. That is the problem.

Eckard,

Thank you for your comment above. I had noticed the very large number of comments on your thread and hoped to have a chance to review them. I would be happy to respond to your above remark, but this is probably not the proper thread to continue this on. I will move over to my own thread and attempt to respond.

One problem is "Most important to me is a compelling chain of logic arguments, if necessary supported by means of convincing figures." The nature of these threads supports arguments, although when dealing with other people it is impossible to guarantee that the chain will follow the logic. And figures are not available. This is why I have developed the theory in four books, but that of course does not help in this format.

Congratulations on the interest that your thread has inspired.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

It's a stretch to characterize counterargument and counterexample as ignoring your arguments. I will be doing so from now on, though.

Thank you.

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

You were kind enough to point out above that experimental results can be used as "proof" of a number of unlikely things, and to ask me to coherently summarize recent results that I claim support my theory. I thank you for your interest and also because, in writing this comment, I realized how much has transpired since I submitted my essay.

On these threads I've been challenged by those with their own ideas about reality, including: 1) QM proves reality is 'non-real' and 'non-local', based on Bell's inequality, 2) GR proves reality is 'geometrical' and thus I have no right to speak of a 'field'. 3) QED has dozen place accuracy and thus is unquestionably correct, and 4) 'your' interpretation does not agree 100% with 'my' interpretation, therefore you are wrong.

I believe fqxi is based on recognition of severe problems in current physics. For this reason I do not worship current physics. My approach to this is:

1) Quantum mechanics (QM) and General Relativity (GR) have not been unified, and I believe this reflects problems in both theories. They are idealized mathematical approaches to different scale phenomena.

2) Neither GR nor QM defines mass in unequivocal fashion. GR has no unique definition of mass and local mass is ill-defined. QM needs Higgs to explain mass, and Higgs has yet to appear, therefore I believe mass is the proper place to focus.

3) I believe ONE field to be a better explanation of reality than the HUNDREDS of fields that Susskind and others base their Multi-verse on.

4) One gravitational field seems to explain how the physical universe evolved from an initial state, the 'big bang' to our known universe.

5) Einstein's GR and Maxwell's GEM equations lead to a C-field that is the gravito-magnetic analog of the magnetic field. The electric field E is sourced by charge, the gravity field G is sourced by mass. The magnetic field B is induced by moving charge and the gravito-magnetic field C is induced by moving mass.

6) G and C are non-linear and hence yield Yang-Mills equations. The topology implied by the C-field is a Calabi-Yau manifold (that is a solution to Einstein's equations).

7) The C-field non-linearities lead to an explanation for all the known particles and particle families of the Standard Model, without any of the dozens of postulated particles, none of which have been seen.

8) Recent Phys Rev Letters have explained the 'fly-by' mysteries and other cosmological mysteries as C-field-based phenomena. The Gravity Probe B experiment has proved the existence of 'frame dragging' which is the 'geometric' approach to the C-field. The effect is real. If one prefers a geometric explanation, one says 'frame dragging'. If one prefers a field interpretation, one says C-field. The same equations lead to the effect.

9) Since 1998 it has been known that quantum electrodynamics (QED) has 120 orders of magnitude less energy than was believed. Yet this has been all but ignored by physicists who claim 12-place accuracy for QED. Recently muonic-hydrogen measurements produce only 1-place accuracy in determination of the proton radius. A recent study (PRL 106, 153001) concluded that standard QED approaches are excluded as explanations. The C-field approach would have predicted this proton anomaly.

10) Recent simulations (PRL 106, 151101) have shown that black hole spin-induced C-field vortexes dominate the merger and ringdown of binary black holes. The authors conjecture there is no other important dynamics.

11) Maeda, et al have shown electrons can exist in Bohr orbits if the 'noise' is suppressed, in contrast to the standard QM approach to electrons in orbit.

12) The basic equations of QM can be derived from the C-field, which can in turn be derived from GR. The C-field equation cannot be derived from QM. I conclude that QM is incomplete in Einstein's sense, and therefore no ultimate conclusions about non-local and non-real properties of reality can be drawn from QM calculations such as Bell's. Although Florin disputes this, no one has shown any logical error in the 7-step logic.

13) Peter Jackson and others have caused me to focus on the interaction of the C-field with photons. I have discovered a number of fascinating things, including the implications that it is the C-field that exhibits length contraction and mass increase in relativistic particles, and time dilation in gravity gradients.

14) Additionally, David Bohm ends his 'Quantum Theory' with the statement that QM "implies the need for a new concept of the relation between large scale and small scale properties of a given system." I believe that the non-linearities associated with the C-field explain this scale dependence.

15) The C-field leads to a 'particle-plus-wave reality' that is significantly different from Bohr's 'particle/wave duality'. (see 7-step logic).

16) Other anomalies listed in my essay include Halo neutrons, J/psi decay to three quarks, relative mass order in electron and quark particles, all explained by the C-field, mysterious otherwise. Additionally dark energy and dark matter are implied by the C-field.

Eckard, this is a brief summary of the recent occurrences that I believe all support the C-field as the most probable explanation of the mysteries and anomalies of today's physics. To my knowledge it is the only theory that derives QM from GR, with significant application to cosmological AND particle physics.

If you care to address any of these points I will try to respond to you on my thread.

I will also try to review your theory, but I have already stated that I am weakest where you are strongest, so I'm not sure how much help I can be.

Congratulations again on the amount of interest you have generated as indicated by the number of comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Quantum gravity requires:

Inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing.

That space be equally, and both, invisible and visible.

That energy/force be represented consistent with distance in/of space (inertially and gravitationally).

That space be both larger and smaller.

Combining and including opposites.

That space be contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in a balanced fashion.

Balanced attraction and repulsion.

That space manifest as gravitational/inertial/electromagnetic energy.

That space be semi-detached from touch.

There has to be some constant to use as a standard. I could state "the speed of light doubled five minutes ago." if space and time changed with the speed of light you have no way of disproving that statement.

If there is gravity waves and if they can travel faster than light why should they be the new standard?

The only place we have a chance of detecting gravity waves is in changes to very dense objects. Light travels slower in a material. When looking at high density objects (neutron stars, super-novas) are we now at a place where we have an "index of refraction" for gamma-rays? We might be looking at slow gamma-rays and not a true change in the speed of light.

If you try to renormalize the speed of light, or set it to a different value, something interesting happens. The Planck length and the rest of the Planck units all adjust accordingingly. Similarly the Bohr radius changes as well. All of this will take place so as to completely hide any change in the speed of light. The speed of light is a parameter for the projective subspace in a Lorentzian manifold. As such this structure is independent of any rescaling of a projective line. Here the lines are the null rays or light cones in spacetime.

Cheers LC

Dear John Donoghue,

Your out of the conventional foundations box work, is essential to the expansion of knowledge, as "spacetime" is a askew fundamentally. I would argue that Space and Time are two immutable constants, equal to the notion of infinities existence, which is a constant we of finite mathematical means will never understand. In other words if a Tree falls and no one hears it, does it still make a sound? The Answer is Always "Yes." Time and Space are of that capacity. The refinement of Time and Space, which Space ONLY will be subject to gravity within a finite spectrum is a worthy endeavor, that will enable better understanding of our physics. In other words, Space does not curve or warp, nor does Time, save particles or waves in Space bending their motion based on gravities influences. The misnomer of curved "Spacetime" is a thought problem, that has misled us for too long and your work, I hope will better open perspectives to view the world, as it really is. Both "Finite" and "Infinite" and a twain of which will never meet. Confusing the two has been our scotoma, our myopic view for too long. Note: Our Big Bang Universe in only a Planck's size and 10 fold smaller, relative to the larger Universe beyond our own Big Bang universe. Once we understand the scope of our ultimate "Thought Problem" of the Alpha and the Omega, which has no beginning nor end, we will build upon a foundation that will liberate our sentient intelligence to see, within and possibly beyond our finite limitations.

Your work is a wedge into that inevitable change that physics will provide to us in a much fuller manner someday.

Congratulations to you and your colleagues...

Dear John and Collegues

I appreciate this kind of work(disscusion) though some points are not clear to me. In general I believe that we all do same thing (searching for Knowledge)though we may have different aspects. I think a fundamental problem is that we can not understand something, unless we undretand it's basis

Here are some statement from the collegues "What is well understood can be expressed clearly" from Marcel-Marie LeBel

"Your out of the conventional foundations box work, is essential to the expansion of knowledge" from Russ Otter

which remembers me the qoutation of Betrand Russell "Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position".

I would like you to ckeck the essay named "A Linking Theory of the Structure of Matter from Ultimate elementary particles to Astrophysics" and to have your advice

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794

Dear Bashir Yusuf,

"fqxi is based on recognition of severe problems in current physics." Wasn't Edwin Eugene Klingman correct in that? I am trying to show that tense-less physics and some inappropriate putative basics of mathematics relate to improper use of abstraction.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear All,

The answer to how the universe emerged and appears the way it is lies with in us. We just need to introspect ourselves and realize that we are the singularity or one with the universe.

who am I? I am vitual reality, I is absolute truth.

http://sridattadev-theoryofeverything.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Eckard

I agree that Edwin Eugene Klingman correct was correct, saying that "fqxi is based on recognition of severe problems in current physics." (more general in current physics).

Klingmans essays is one of the essays that I think contain lot of more rational facts including "Yet this cosmological and particle physics explanation for current physics is far simpler than many physicists wish it to be" because, as Robert Godwin says

"One begins by abstracting from concrete existence, and ends by attributing concreteness to the abstraction" and many more.

I also suspect the way I expressed my essay, linguistically, because it seems to be different from what I expected others understanding.

However, "If someone claims some improper issue, reason must be included, since reasoning is governing the acceptance of a Scientific Theory" and there is no problem.

The most serious challenge the current Physics is very basic and easy understandable if we change our view to a more conceptual one.

I try to clarify what I think its important and simplest view the nature and the reality behind it. To reach the destiny of Reality, one could follow its right track since it has analogue property.

"to explain any and more fundamental reality, must based on Matter, Space and Time issue, I think is very Important which we could try deeply understand. Here lies foundation of physics. So long, these three terms (Gram, meter and second) are valid we may achieve a rational concept of things. In other words I don't know how to express any reality without this minimum requirement. Otherwise, controversial situation arise here.

Can matter be converted energy? If yes, what is the meaning of Energy? Can matter be converted time? Can matter be converted wave? I already experienced some physicist claiming there are no particles in fundamental level, when tried to get insight, get difficulty can waves exist alone? What makes waves? How particle can a mass-less? How can we explain, an inexistent particle? Many more likely....

When I've tried to answer one of these questions every thing became illogic and some kind comedy. Finally I realized that there important to have at least the most basic units to explain things rationally. Like our word combination makes a sentence which understandable.

Best wishes.

Bashir.