Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 10/6/12 at 14:52pm UTC, wrote Unfortunately, not in time. 5 minutes ago, an opportunity to put an end...

Vladimer Rogozhin: on 10/6/12 at 14:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Rafael! You write: "The space-time transformations became te popular...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 9:51am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Peter Jackson: on 10/4/12 at 9:03am UTC, wrote Rafael I agree with your response. Frames ARE kinetic states, even in...

Curt Youngs: on 9/29/12 at 9:14am UTC, wrote I have some points to discuss regarding your Figure 1. You did not state...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 15:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

re castel: on 9/1/12 at 1:36am UTC, wrote I mean the FQXi Advisory Council also, not just the Scientific...

re castel: on 9/1/12 at 1:28am UTC, wrote Dirk, Peter, James, I've been a bit busy and I haven't had time for the...


Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time

click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

May 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Questioning the Foundations: Space-Time Transformations vs. Motion Transformations by Rafael Emmanuel Castel [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author re castel wrote on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 12:22 GMT
Essay Abstract

The laws of nature (physics) describe fundamental transformation processes that are deemed the fundamentals of the laws. The idea of the velocity (motion) transformations and the idea of the arbitrary space-time transformations are respectively the fundamentals of the classical physics and modern physics. This paper presents the straightforward physical considerations and the novel derivations and straightforward interpretations of the transformation equations. This paper juxtaposes the reasoning behind the differing interpretations of the transformation equations, which puts in serious doubt the validity of the idea of space-time transformations. This paper presents the relations and derivations and the connections and extensions that all together demonstrate the sense and the correctness of the idea of motion transformations.

Author Bio

The author is a graduate of BYU-Hawaii and is presently a systems developer-integrator and information systems consultant and an independent researcher.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

re castel wrote on Jun. 17, 2012 @ 15:19 GMT
After reading some of the comments elsewhere, I am inclined to give the following comments here.

There is beauty in the mathematical representations. What we lack is the definitive approach in the interpretation that fits reality.

The maths describe the transformations in nature - this is physics. Therefore, the underlying idea in the word "transformation" (especially, what is transformed) should be clarified in order to have the clear interpretation of the maths in physics.

The fundamental idea in classical physics is the velocity (or motion) transformations. The fundamental idea in Einsteinian physics is the arbitrary space-time transformations with the implication that space and time can be effected with the motions that bring about the transformations.

Since it promotes the arbitrary view, of either the transformations of space or of time and of the relativity of motion, the modern interpretive approach upholds no specific interpretation that uniquely fits reality; the stipulation of arbitrariness fits anything as reality. Thus, the unfaithfulness is promoted by the stipulation for the arbitrariness and the relativity.

Significantly in accord with the classical physics, the argument in my paper is that the math representations describe motion transformations -- i.e., simply the motions of the motions themselves; as I have forwarded in the previous essay contest, both the discrete and the continuous are constructs of motion (kinetic constructs). The sole function of space is that it gets occupied by the substance that gets defined by the motion. No arbitrary transformations of space and of time! Only the transformations of motions in the substance of existence! I think this view uniquely fits reality.

If we thoroughly examine the "tensors" and "vectors", "dimensions" and "manifolds", "fields" and "charges", "mass" and "energy", and the like, that are represented in the maths, we will find that they all denote "constructs of motion" and that their interactions resolve in motion transformations. I think if we understand this idea, then we will begin to truly understand our physics.

In questioning the foundations, we can simply ask the question: Is it spacetime transformations or is it motion transformations?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Curt Youngs replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:14 GMT
I have some points to discuss regarding your Figure 1. You did not state (probably due to constraints of the contest's essay length requirement) that when the light rays were initially emitted, both coordinate systems were coincident at their origins. In most renditions of this Galilean Transform diagram, the authors explicitly state that at coincidence of the origins, the "event" of the light...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dirk Pons wrote on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 09:35 GMT

The motion transformations idea is interesting.

You wrote: 'More than mere abstractions - space, substance, and motion are also phenomenal realities. Absolutely abstractions -time, instance, and duration are noumenal realities.' It reminds me of the writings of de Vinci, who also was seeking to express innovative concepts about motion and force. He also, like you, had to create new terms and associations of meanings to communicate the ideas.

Our conceptualisation of (gravitational) force and motion might need further changes before all is done.

Thank you


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 18:30 GMT

"the study of physics can be done in purely kinematic terms." Bravo. I was looking forward to your essay this year and it did not disappoint. My own shows the astonishing results of applying the kinetic approach; "...where the idea

is that the objects in motion are the motions themselves."

This indeed gives "... an infinitely hierarchical cosmos..."

My essay and end notes confirm full agreement with your; "...mass dominated universe always existed..." "...rippling cycles of growth...cosmic expansion that is driven by the spiraling orbital momenta..."

Your clear direct style and mathematics are also excellent. But of course you identify the big problem in physics with your last line; "...the intellectual community's perceptive examination of its merits."

Unfortunately of course the intellectual community understand little of physics, (or is it vice versa?) and those that do tend to they only consider nature. If we include influential mainstream or even dissident physicists as intellectuals the situation is little improved. 'Examination on merits' is 'science', where belief systems have little place so don't often venture.

None the less as an exception to prove the rule you can rely on a well earned ^ rating from this examiner.

You may also be one of the few able to fully penetrate and analyse the implications of my own essay, extending the effects of dynamic logic and kinetics from the quanta to the cosmos via discrete hierarchical spatial geometries. I look forward to your comments and any questions.

Very best of luck


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 21:50 GMT
Dear re castel,

Nice work. I enjoyed reading your views. They are different from mine, but, agreement with me is not a pre-requisite for correctness. I liked your presentation. Thank you for your essay.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

re castel wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 01:28 GMT
Dirk, Peter, James,

I've been a bit busy and I haven't had time for the FQXi contest. I appreciate your comments very much. Thank you.

I am glad that there are more people looking into the idea of kinematic relativity and the idea of motion transformations. Not only here in FQXi but also elsewhere. Googling "kinematic relativity", I discovered that, based on the quality of the...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

re castel wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 01:36 GMT
I mean the FQXi Advisory Council also, not just the Scientific Directorate...

Bookmark and Share
post approved

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:48 GMT

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !


August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:03 GMT

I agree with your response. Frames ARE kinetic states, even in Minkowski's own conceptions. Your thesis is very close to mine, as we also found last year I recall, and which I hope you'll get time to read and score this year. There are other like minded authors here and a consensus group possible. It's looking positive. Hope you get more time.

Best wishes.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:51 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimer Rogozhin wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear Rafael!

You write: "The space-time transformations became te popular foundational principle in modern physics. But it has led to the stupor of ideas." Why did this happen? I think that the fundamental model of modern world order have no ontological foundation. Your ideas are great! But where ontological justification? Perhaps this is why such a misunderstanding. Unfortunately, I did not read your essay before, and contest is over, but I have now put a high public rating. Sincerely, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 14:52 GMT
Unfortunately, not in time. 5 minutes ago, an opportunity to put an end rating. Sorry! Success in promoting your ideas and foudation. Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.