show all replies (4 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Alexander,

Further to my post just now (under Sandhu's post),as stated there I am copying my letter to the adminsitrator of FQXi.

--------------

Dear Brendan,

Thanks for clarifying how voting works and explaining the irrelevancy of ‘Public Ratings’. Without any solicitations of votes from others or even without voting myself, some unknown readers have voted...

view entire post

Dear Alexander,

Further to my post just now (under Sandhu's post),as stated there I am copying my letter to the adminsitrator of FQXi.

--------------

Dear Brendan,

Thanks for clarifying how voting works and explaining the irrelevancy of ‘Public Ratings’. Without any solicitations of votes from others or even without voting myself, some unknown readers have voted high for my essay. It once ranked on top (in Public Ratings), now in the first five (you may know who has voted for it but I don’t). But this is all irrelevant. Community rating of my essay is dismal, perhaps because it is a later entry and there has been no opportunity for the Community to read and asses it.

Therefore I would like you (Brendan) to pass the following message to the Community.

The topic of the essay contest is: “Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?”.

Here is my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

I would like to remind the reader that no matter how nicely an essay is worded or that it covers some other interesting topic in physics, the reader ought to bear in mind that the essay needs to be judged (rated) from the point of view of the contest in relation to RELEVANCE OF ITS CONTENT TO THE TOPIC OF THE CONTEST.

I this regard I would like to bring to your notice that my essay is strictly relevant to this topic for the following reasons.

1. I have listed out a number of assumptions that Newton made that have turned out to be foundational errors.

2. I have not only listed the errors, found a new approach to overcome these errors (guided by notions of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein) and provided accurate quantitative solutions.

3. I have discussed that these wrong assumptions of Newton have been carried over to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity and these too are afflicted by the same problems.

To quote from the essay: “We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts created by Newton that have congenitally infected RT and QM are a) the primacy of the concepts of space and time, b) representation of bodies as mass-points without internal structure, c) consideration of centrifugal force as a pseudo-force, d) the closed system with the consequent inability to account for inflow and outflow of energy between the system and the field etc. e) Not recognizing that it is by the two quantities of energy (Mc2 and pc) fusing together to form a system that motion occurs. f) the omission of the fact that a fraction of the applied energy of motion pc gets usurped for the co-movement with the location. g) Not developing the theory with state changes of energy as the basis of its physical geometry. With these congenital foundational problems being inherent in these two progeny theories as well, it should be obvious that revamping of physics must begin from where the problems originated”.

4. I have shown from Newton’s writings (Preface to the Principia) that he intended to create only a makeshift theory (Mechanics) as a stepping stone until a “Truer Method of Philosophy” (a geometric theory based on the behaviour ‘least particles’) is found.

5. I have shown from Einstein’s writings that he considered both Newtonian foundation as well as that of his own theory are based on fictitious concepts.

6. I have shown that Einstein has pointed that the ‘Right Way’ is yet to be found which would be based on simplest conceivable mathematical ideas connecting laws with phenomena.

7. I have shown why Einstein could not find the ‘Right Way’ himself which he was desperately in search of, by expanding the thermodynamic approach into whole of physics.

8. I have shown that Maxwell chartered an outline of a program for the future development of science, based on the paradigm that all phenomena are based on state changes of energy, and inflow and outflow of energy from a system (i.e. based on open systems).

9. By assimilating the intuitive notions of all the founders, in regard to the future development of physics should take, I have initiated to develop a new approach.

10. It a) provides the equation of motion for a particle at any velocity (slow or near light velocity) thus the schism in physics between Newtonian mechanics and SRT is removed. b) Explains how gamma-factors arise, c) why it requires momentum gamma-Mv for a particle to be set in motion with momentum Mv. d) provides the physical basis of the Lorentz transformation, e) the physical basis of the constancy of the velocity of light g) why physical processes slow down when a particle is in motion. h) From where the energy underlying the centrifugal force comes.

(This is all I could squeeze in within the 25,000 characters permitted by the contest. Elsewhere I have derived Lorentz force, gravitational time increase of a GPS clock, Compton scattering, explanation of Michelson’s experiment by recognizing TDE changes frequency while keeping velocity constant etc.).

Unfortunately the diagrams in the essay have not come out properly. Therefore I also attach the essay in MS Word format

I request the Community to assess my essay and give the rating that you think it deserves.

Best regards,

Viraj Fernando

view post as summary

Dear Alexander,

Although ideally, the rules should have been that authors should not be allowed to vote, voting by authors seems to be the main voting process here. So I feel voting on merit of the content has to be done by authors objectively and impartially. I have already read and commented on your most interesting essay. On that basis I have also rated your essay.

My essay is: ...

view entire post

Dear Alexander,

Although ideally, the rules should have been that authors should not be allowed to vote, voting by authors seems to be the main voting process here. So I feel voting on merit of the content has to be done by authors objectively and impartially. I have already read and commented on your most interesting essay. On that basis I have also rated your essay.

My essay is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549 (I also attach the MS Word version for clarity of diagrams). I request you to rate it on the merit of its content.

Here is a summary of the essay:

1. I have listed out a number of assumptions that Newton made that have turned out to be foundational errors.

2. I have not only listed the errors, I have found a new approach to overcome these errors (guided by notions of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein) and provided accurate quantitative solutions.

3. I have discussed that these wrong assumptions of Newton have been carried over to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity and these too are afflicted by the same problems.

To quote from the essay: “We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts created by Newton that have congenitally infected RT and QM are a) the primacy of the concepts of space and time, b) representation of bodies as mass-points without internal structure, c) consideration of centrifugal force as a pseudo-force, d) the closed system with the consequent inability to account for inflow and outflow of energy between the system and the field etc. e) Not recognizing that it is by the two quantities of energy (Mc2 and pc) fusing together to form a system that motion occurs. f) the omission of the fact that a fraction of the applied energy of motion pc gets usurped for the co-movement with the location. g) Not developing the theory with state changes of energy as the basis of its physical geometry. With these congenital foundational problems being inherent in these two progeny theories as well, it should be obvious that revamping of physics must begin from where the problems originated”.

4. I have shown from Newton’s writings (Preface to the Principia) that he intended to create only a makeshift theory (Mechanics) as a stepping stone until a “Truer Method of Philosophy” (a geometric theory based on the behaviour ‘least particles’) is found.

5. I have shown from Einstein’s writings that he considered both Newtonian foundation as well as that of his own theory are based on fictitious concepts.

6. I have shown that Einstein has pointed that the ‘Right Way’ is YET TO BE FOUND which would be based on simplest conceivable mathematical ideas connecting laws with phenomena.

7. I have shown why Einstein could not find the ‘Right Way’ himself which he was desperately in search of, by expanding the thermodynamic approach into whole of physics.

8. I have shown that Maxwell chartered an outline of a program for the future development of science, based on the paradigm that all phenomena are based on state changes of energy, and inflow and outflow of energy from a system (i.e. based on open systems).

9. By assimilating the intuitive notions of all the founders, in regard to the future development of physics should take, I have initiated to develop a new approach.

10. It a) provides the equation of motion for a particle at any velocity (slow or near light velocity) thus the schism in physics between Newtonian mechanics and SRT is removed. b) Explains how gamma-factors arise, c) why it requires momentum gamma-Mv for a particle to be set in motion with momentum Mv. d) provides the physical basis of the Lorentz transformation, e) the physical basis of the constancy of the velocity of light g) why physical processes slow down when a particle is in motion. h) From where the energy underlying the centrifugal force comes.

(This is all I could squeeze in within the 25,000 characters permitted by the contest. Elsewhere I have derived Lorentz force, gravitational time increase of a GPS clock, Compton scattering, explanation of Michelson’s experiment by recognizing TDE changes frequency while keeping velocity constant etc. If you are interested I can provide these solutions).

Best regards,

Viraj

view post as summary