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

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

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 Fnd.

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


Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

January 21, 2018

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space by Gurcharn Singh Sandhu [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 14:31 GMT
Essay Abstract

The founding assumptions or postulates of Relativity and some of the resulting consequences confound the logic and common sense. In Relativity the Newtonian notions of absolute motion, absolute time, and absolute reference frame have been replaced with the Einsteinian notions of relative motion, relative time, and inertial reference frames in relative motion. This relativity dominated viewpoint has effectively abandoned any critical study or advanced research in the detailed properties and processes of physical space for advancement of Fundamental Physics. In this essay I show that the founding assumptions and postulates of Relativity are fundamentally wrong. To reinforce this argument two practically doable experiments are proposed for detection of absolute motion and establishment of a universal or absolute reference frame. After establishing the Newtonian absolute space, we can focus on the physical properties of space and examine the formation and existence of matter and fields in this physical space. Feasibility of such an advanced study of physical space as an elastic continuum is also discussed. It is shown that all forms of stable and unstable matter particles and fields exist as localized dynamic stress/strain bubbles in the elastic space continuum.

Author Bio

Gurcharn S. Sandhu is an engineer by profession but a physicist by pursuit. After his M. Tech. from Cranfield Institute of Technology (UK) he rendered a long distinguished service in the Defense Research and Development Organization of India. Fundamental research in physics initially started as his hobby but gradually turned into a passion. In pursuit of this passion he obtained premature retirement from service and started devoting full time on fundamental physics research. He has published a book titled, “Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields”, which contains the gist of his research work on physical space as an elastic continuum.

Download Essay PDF File

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 03:41 GMT
Dear Sri Gurcharn Singh Sandhu,

I was impressed by your paper both for your determined effort to escape what you term the 'mesmerizing effects of Relativity', and with the detailed technical approach you have presented. I have reached a somewhat similar conclusion about physical reality, local interactions and the disservice Einstein has done physics in creating Special Relativity. He could have just emphasized Lorentz' and others' ideas, but instead created this very specialized world of his where measurement is absolute (c constant) but the Universe is relative. It worked but has created many complications...

My work is qualitative compared to yours, and I need to re-read your work especially about proposed experiments. Where I differ from your approach is your conclusion that the universal medium is elastic and perhaps continuous. I rather think of it as having varying angular momentum at local discrete dielectric points making up the ether lattice. I would be honored if you read and comment on my fqxi essay Fix Physics! , and also Beautiful Universe Theory on which it is based.

With best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 07:52 GMT
Dear Vladimir Tamari

Thanks for your appreciation of my essay.

I don't expect all authors in this contest to completely agree on any one point of view. Small little contributions from many like-minded authors can definitely make a difference in the emergence of a consolidated un-orthodox viewpoint to remove some of the major weaknesses, contradictions and fantasies from current Physics.

For evolving such consolidated viewpoint, the foremost requirement in my opinion is to distinguish between the physical entities and abstract mathematical notions. I am not against mathematics, but I am against allowing a mix-up between abstract mathematical notions and physical reality. For example I cannot accept 4D spacetime model of GR as a physical entity that can be curved or deformed. I cannot accept the mathematical construct of a metric associated with a coordinate manifold as a physical entity. In my opinion it is absolutely essential to distinguish between the mathematical notion of coordinate space and the physical space.

Finally, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.

With best wishes

G S Sandhu

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 11:45 GMT
Dear Vladimir Tamari,

Congratulations for your excellent essay, I especially enjoyed your diagrams. I liked your analogy with a modern building, very true. I also liked your style and skepticism. However, I cannot agree with your starting assumptions in your Beautiful Universe.

Overall an excellent essay.

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 14:45 GMT
GS Sandhu,

The following paragraph caught my eye so I will reread your essay in closer detail:

"A closed region of Elastic Space Continuum in a strained state, satisfying the equilibrium equations & boundary conditions, may be termed as a strain bubble, provided the total strain energy content in this closed region is time invariant constant."

I believe that we may come to the same conclusions through different routes. I think your section 5 can easily be supported by a simple change in General Relativity. Any comments you may have on my essay are appreciated.


Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 05:51 GMT
Dear Jeff Baugher ,

Thanks for your positive comments.

The sentence which you have quoted represents the core area of the proposed research in physical space. In my opinion there is a tremendous scope for advanced future research in coming decades to study and understand all physical phenomenon as embedded in physical space continuum in the form of strain waves and packets.

I shall make appropriate comments on your essay in your essay thread.


G S Sandhu

Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 07:15 GMT
GS Sandhu,

I am examining your paper published in Physics Essays more in depth. You state: "The GR is based on Riemannian 3D space in which the points of the space continuum are not considered invariant." Do you not mean a 4D space where the 3 spatial bases are not invariant? If not, can you explain more in depth?

(I accidentally first posted this on my own thread page instead of the appropriate place, which is here.)



report post as inappropriate

Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 08:07 GMT

Just to make sure, your equation (24) in your Physics Essays paper should have the mass term >>1, correct?


Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 13:52 GMT
Dear Dear Jeff Baugher ,

Kindly first study 'Invariance of Arc Element ds' in section II and then study 'Metric Representation of Continuum Deformation' in section III. Thereafter when you study 'Deformable Riemannian 3-D Space' in section III it will become clear that "In GR, the coefficients of metric tensor hij are obtained from Einstein‘s Field Equations (EFE) and the Riemann curvature tensor Rijkl computed from hij is non-zero. On the other hand, the Riemann tensor computed from the metric tensor gij of the Euclidean space, is always zero. As such the Riemannian 3D space of GR is defined to be a deformable space which is generally perceived as curved space. Albert Einstein had stated that 'the Space-time continuum of the General Theory of Relativity is not a Euclidean Continuum'."

Further, the mass term 2GM/c2r in equation (24) is

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT
(Sorry, my previous post got truncated due to some technical problem in much less than symbol.)

Further, the mass term 2GM/c2r in equation (24) is much less than 1 for studying the induced strain in the weak field limit. This is just for illustration of the induced deformations produced by GR if spacetime is assumed to be a physical entity. Finally it is proved that the 4D spacetime manifold cannot be a physical entity.


G S Sandhu

Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:35 GMT

I will study the sections you are speaking of. As for equation (24), can you work out how you got your answer? I am not algebraically following you. I can't get your answer. If 2GM/c2r1 then
so that
and doesn't work either to get your answer.


Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 03:38 GMT
Dear Jeff Baugher,

As I have already explained a number of times, when 2GM/c2r is much less than 1, the expression

2err = (1-2GM/c2r)-1 - 1 = (1 + 2GM/c2r) - 1 = 2GM/c2r

and not zero for the simple reason that when the term 2GM/c2r is much less than 1, higher powers of (2GM/c2r) can be...

view entire post

Domenic Oricchio wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 00:27 GMT
I reread your essay.

It is interesting to consider what is the strength of the relativity compared with the Poincaré theory, or Umov theory (I don't know this interesting story): what is the characteristic that help the human revolution? I think that your reasoning is right: the strength of the revolution is in the world of ideas because we have not maps (mathematical description) of the physic frontier.

I think that the abstract mathematical construct like wave function (visible interference fringe) and four dimensional coordinate (perihelion precession of Mercury) have a direct observable measure but I think that your idea is more deep: I understand that now, in this age, we use a construct that must change in some thousand years (in an other mathematical frame), with a simpler description that is true like this (if it is so, that is interesting).

When you say that the laws of Nature exist independently from the coordinate system, then you say an interesting thing (that I don't notice in the first reading): the laws are true for each system, considering all the transformation, and apparent forces.

I have ever used a different synchronization, using the reflections time along AB, then I must to make some calculation to verify all (I understand that in [9] c+Uab is an approximation, because the velocity cannot be greater of c).

I voted your essay some day ago, like all the other, but I make a quickly read: each essay merit a reading for the innovative idea, but my vote are not ever generous.



report post as inappropriate

Colin Walker wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 23:41 GMT
Dear G S Sandhu

Ron Hatch holds views quite similar to yours on inertial reference frames, Galilean velocity addition and a compressible ether with stress and strain.

In his seventies now, Ron is a GPS consultant and is probably still part of the company he co-founded. He is an engineer with a string of accomplishments without an advanced degree.

Ron had a website with his papers, but took it down after Gravity Probe B did not confirm a result he had predicted. As I recall it had to do with gyroscope precession. My impression was that his prediction was made rashly. From what little I understand, the effect would only be of second-order and should be unobservable.

Ron is a proponent of an exponential metric which is the subject of my essay. By the way, I doubt if he believes a metric has any existence beyond mathematics any more than I do.

Hatch presumes from the beginning an exponential "scale factor" which functionally replaces the metric in simple situations like free fall. The purpose of my essay is to derive the exponential metric from Newtonian potential energy and special relativity. Special relativity and the corresponding part of what Hatch calls Modified Lorentian Ether Theory (MLET) give the same result for the relevant quantities.

Thank you very much for your comment on Ernst Fischer's essay. You exposed a problem with balancing the energy for Mach's principle. To me energy is of primary importance and I like to investigate possibilities - even if they might involve spooky action at a distance.

All the best


report post as inappropriate

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 07:33 GMT
Dear Colin,

Yes, I have glanced through a number of Ron Hatch's papers and agree that his views are quite similar to mine in many respects. However, he could not break off from the mesmerizing influence of Relativity and has been focusing on its modifications. I have particularly noted his remark, "While it is true that there is no measurement which can be used to distinguish the absolute ether frame from any other inertial frame,..". In this regard, I wonder if you could forward a copy of my contest essay, "Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space" to Ron Hatch to show that I have proposed not one but two simple doable tests for detection of absolute reference frame.

All the best

G S Sandhu

George wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 06:06 GMT
Dear Sandhu,

Your work is interesting; mostly I agree with your critics. There are some points as well (on SR), on which I have some different view (particularly, I see M-r Minkowski more “guilty” than Einstein) Nevertheless, it seems just impossible to discuss it right here because the deal is about “so heavy” theme that requires pages and time.

On W=mc^2. It is more important for me that Einstein have realized/interpreted right cognitive meaning of it (in mine opinion). Who have deduced it first – there are different views that I cannot exclude.



report post as inappropriate

Joseph Maria Hoebe wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 18:21 GMT
Hello G.S.

Very good essay. Thanks.

The one thing I like of A.E. is his approach to see the truth of more than one observer. To me SR is about that.

It is an observer dilemma and not a physical dilemma.

A problem to me in GR is C. The idea of a vacuum is false. It is just an assumption. Also in outer space (seen from off earth) there is no real vacuum.

Another problem with SR, but also in other theories, like the one you mentioned, is C2. The squaring is derived from the calculation but not taken into account as number. Even when C is constant and absolute the final conclusion should be: C2 = C, like 1^2 equals 1. Because this is left out, C2 should be seen like a nominator of dimension, by which C2 is a field instead of a direction (Line).

Well, enough. I think in coming time a lot more physicists will break down the holy grail of A.E and his SR. Your thesis is a good start.


with warm regards

Jos Hoebe

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 17:25 GMT

You wrote: "Further, a rod of length L0 will be seen to be of different lengths L1, L2, etc. when viewed from different IRF moving parallel to the length at different velocities. Hence, we may conclude that the length contraction in SR is an apparent effect, induced by the assumed constancy of the speed of light 'c' in all IRF in relative motion. This implies a logical flaw in the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear Pentcho Valev,

I agree with you that there are many absurdities in the formulation as well as in the interpretation of SR. You say, "But Einsteinians couldn't care less and develop the absurdity further. They teach that, since the rod is measured to be shorter, it can even be trapped inside a shorter container - e.g. an 80 m pole can be gloriously trapped inside a 40 m barn"

All such paradoxes of SR in fact represent the internal contradictions and inconsistencies of SR. In case of so called 'length contraction', the inconsistency is in the prescribed 'hypothetical' measurement procedure. As I have written in the essay, "We say ‘hypothetically measured’ because as per the prescribed method of measurement, the measuring rods are supposed to be carried in the moving IRF (K') while the rod to be measured is located in the BCRF, and the measurements are to be carried out through exchange of light signals. Practically it is impossible to carry out such measurements." And such a measurement of length contraction has in fact NEVER been carried out throughout the long history of SR.

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 12:58 GMT
Length contraction is the standard miracle but there is also length elongation in special relativity. Without length elongation, special relativity predicts that the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is both dead and alive:

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear Mr. Gurcharn,

Thank you so much for taking the time and the trouble to read my essay and for posting a comment about it.

As you kindly requested of me, I have now attempted to read your essay, however, due to the dismal fact that I am not particularly well educated, I am afraid I did not understand a good deal of it. It did seem to be exceptionally well written and its presentation was clear and succinct. The section on “dimension analysis” did intrigue me, especially your assertion that numbers are dimensionless.

As best as I can tell, one real appearing Universe can be perpetually occurring in one real here for one real now while performing in one real dimension once. All real stuff has always to remain in one real dimension, although that one real dimension can have three abstract aspects. There is only one real 1 of anything once. There is only one real 1 of everything once.

Mathematicians constantly reuse the symbolic number 1 without ever paying any mind to the abstract absolute logical imperative of a defined once. If a real Universe can only use one real one of anything once, Mathematics has to have an inbuilt flaw because the only symbolic 1 that would have had any plausibility would have been the very first 1 that was ever constructed once.

I do wish you well in the contest.

report post as inappropriate

murat Asgatovich gaisin wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 07:09 GMT
Dear Sandhu,

Congratulations. You wrote a very good essay with a criticism of Relativity. The content of your essay is important for our time. SR and GR should stay in the past as a false theory cause they contain wrong notions about space and essence of time.

Best regards,

M.A. Gaisin

report post as inappropriate

Patrick Alan Hutchinson wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 19:07 GMT
Hello Gurcharn Singh Sandhu

This is actually a response to your post to Geoffrey Haselhurst. I hope this is an appropriate way to send it.

You write to Hazelhurst:

You say, "what we call empty space is in fact full of waves". In your opinion, what are the physical properties of this empty space that facilitate the creation or propagation of waves in it? Which parameter is supposed to oscillate in these waves?

My essay, The Place of Geometry in Physics, is about a possible answer. That is its main topic. I hope you find it satisfactory.

Best wishes

Alan Hutchinson.

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 00:57 GMT
Dear Gurbachan,

I have read your excellent paper and I am in general agreement with your views. There are some areas that I see differently. The point that is most important in your argument, as I see it is your disagreement with the first postulate – ‘Special’ Principle of Relativity’. In addition to the relevant dynamical point you raise about the angular momentum and kinetic...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Viraj,

You say, "I think the dynamic explanation of LT by the restoration of Galileo s principle will be important to prove the fallacy of the notion of equivalence of all IFR."

After discussing various fallacies, paradoxes and inconsistencies of Relativity with expert relativists for a number of years, I have come to believe that no amount of logical arguments can ever convince them about the invalidity of Relativity. The only way forward is to practically demonstrate the invalidity of Relativity through a repeatable unambiguous experiment. For that I have proposed not one but two simple doable experiments for detection of absolute motion that can clinch the issue once and for all. In fact the second experiment is so simple that any pair of timing Labs can conduct it within a week without asking for any additional resources. A detailed paper about this proposed experiment has been just accepted for publication in Applied Physics Research Journal for publication in their November issue. Links to these papers have been given in my essay.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 06:33 GMT
Dear Gurcham Singh Sandhu,

You provided almost no references to those many who also dealt with the topic you are focusing on. Hopefully you will appreciate the references 5, 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 in my essay.

My Fig. 5 refers to 28. I consider it the first obviously plausible and quantitatively confirmed explanation for the unexpected null-result of the experiment by Michelson and Morley. The implications should be known.

Any objections?



report post as inappropriate

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I have just read your excellent essay and fully agree with your point of view. I am also impressed with the long list of references given in your essay. However, I refrained from quoting many references because of the FQXi guidelines mentioning, "While the essay may or may not constitute original research, if the core ideas are largely contained in published works, those works should be the author's."

Further I am convinced that no amount of logical arguments can ever convince the Relativists about the invalidity of Relativity. The only way forward is to practically demonstrate the invalidity of Relativity through a repeatable unambiguous experiment. For that I have proposed not one but two simple doable experiments for detection of absolute motion that can clinch the issue once and for all. In fact the second experiment is so simple that any pair of timing Labs can conduct it within a week without asking for any additional resources. A detailed paper about this proposed experiment has been just accepted for publication in Applied Physics Research Journal for publication in their November issue. Links to these papers have been given in my essay.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 10:40 GMT

I liked your nicely written critique of relativity, agreeing with most but with one big caveat; In logic, nothing can be proved illogical if just one case exists in which it may be logical Astonishingly I've found such a case for the SR postulates. I hope you may study it in my essay and comment.

It actually proves most of you other points correct, but the assumption that rigid objects even 'appear to contract' (never evidenced) incorrect. Contraction and dilation would apply to time signals, waves, strings of photons and compressible bodies on acceleration, (between inertial states) and = Doppler shift.

Interestingly it shows that an absolute ultimate frame is logically possible AS WELL as local ones. The hierachical compound structure of logic is applied directly to real inertial 'frames' as real spaces with real spatial limits. It does take some concentration to assimilate! I hope you can do so and give me your views.

Well done, and best of luck.


report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 20:35 GMT
Hi Gurcharn,

My project does not entail exposing of fallacies of SRT per se as you seem to think. I made the above statement to you (and quoted back by you) because your paper is seemingly dedicated to expose fallacies of SRT, and I pointed out that your position can be made stronger by the derivation of LT by a dynamic interpretation of Galileo’s principle of relativity (as opposed to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 20:50 GMT
Excuse me. The system seems to reject "less than" "greater than" symbols. So I have re-adjusted the script and trying again.


By rectifying all the above problems, I have forged a theory that covers the physics of motions of bodies for all velocities – zero less than v less than c. The “GDE transformation” is applicable to any velocity, unlike Newtonian mechanics (v...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 12:05 GMT
Dear Viraj ,

I don't know Tom Phipps. Some one from National Timing Labs who contribute to the UTC time can easily help conduct the proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion through measurement of a few clock synchronization offsets. Let me know the contact address of Tom Phipps to find out if he can really help in conducting such experiment.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 15:15 GMT
Dear G S Sandhu,

Thank you for your kind words. I agree with you! In the background of overwhelming odds (and noise) our collective message that something is wrong with physics needs to resonate in mutual support to be heard and considered.

You write, “The fact that mathematics mainly deals with dimensionless numbers, distinguishes its domain from that of physics. Physical...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
Hi Gurchan,

About Tom Phipps, look for “Acausal Absorber Theory” under the following article:
view.html. If your experiment is doable he will be most interested in it, to prove the constancy of light speed. Tom Phipps,

You may also contact Greg Volk at the Natural...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Patrick Alan Hutchinson wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 23:18 GMT
Dear Sandhu

Thanks for your very kind appreciative remarks on my essay.

Your ideas about assessment make a lot of sense. I have been wondering about it. It would be better if something like what you suggest were made obligatory: entrants who don't assess several other essays might somehow be penalised, so the assessment process would be performed properly.

At this stage, the FQXI organisers are not likely to change procedures, so this won't happen.

Anyway, best wishes

Alan H.

report post as inappropriate

Gene H Barbee wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 17:44 GMT
Singh, I appreciate your comments on my essay and I was impressed with your use of mathamatics and logic to show deficiencies in our current theory of relativity. In fact, the reason it took me so long to respond to your post is that I was motivated to do a great deal more work by your essay. I was sympathetic to your argument that we need a foundation that does not depend on an inertial frame. I posted a new paper entitled "Gravity in an expanding universe". There is a heading late in the paper entitled "In a relativitic universe is anything constant?" that I would like your comments on if you have time.

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 02:43 GMT
Dear Gene Barbee/ Gurchan,

You wrote to Gurchan Sandhu: “I was sympathetic to your argument that we need a foundation that does not depend on an inertial frame”.

My paper not only shows the way to work motions of particles without reference frames, it explains all relativistic phenomena under this new foundation.

Please see: ...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 11:06 GMT
Dear Gurcharn,

Your differentiation of physics entities and mathematical constructions in physics is a good base to find ways to overcome some problems of fundamental theory. I agree with you in the question that constancy of speed of light is a convention in STR. See about it in Extended special theory of relativity. I think the properties of physical space mostly dependent on the gravitons fluxes because of their great energy density, as it pointed out in my essay. It seems the property of elasticity of space is only first step to reality.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 10:02 GMT
Dear professors Sandhu

Although different measures, but we have the same conclusion.

Very happy to know professors.

Kind Regards !


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

report post as inappropriate

David Rousseau wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear GS Sandhu,

Julie and I have read your essay and we really liked your clear distinction between mathematical abstractions and physical reality. It's easy to accidentally blur this line and we think your clarity on this is very important when working on fundamental topics. We are also in agreement with the position you take about the nature of space, time, and causality. We defend compatible views in our essay, where we propose a model in which space is a kind of medium that has energy and can interact with physical matter, just as you argue must be the case. We were also pleased to see you defending the view that the future comes about through the operation of physical laws of nature operating in the present. Taking causation and change seriously is important for doing clearheaded science. We also rely on this approach in our essay, where we argue that a commitment to scientific explanations inevitable commit us to conservation laws, causal processes and genuine change.

Congratulations on a very well written essay that defends important fundamental concepts and distinctions, and proposes practical tests of the ideas you propose. We like your essay very much, and we have rated it very positively.

Best wishes,

David and Julie

report post as inappropriate

Author Gurcharn Singh Sandhu replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear David and Julie,

Thanks for your most encouraging and positive comments on my essay. I have already read your excellent essay and rated it as such.

I wish you best of luck in the contest.

Warm Regards

G S Sandhu

Renate Quehenberger replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 23:32 GMT
Dear GS Sandhu,

I like to ad my compliments to your essay here.

Indeed there are too many peculiarities arising from the notion of time as a pure signal of light .

Equally I agree to your a upgrading of Euclidian geometry towards a higher dimensional Minkowski space time manifold serving as a metric structure for a neo-Newtonian absolut space.

But may I wonder if you might change your mind about" 4D space time as a physical entity", if you look back on its foundations ?

For this issue I may recommend my footnotes in :

Best wishes,

Renate Quehenberger

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 23:26 GMT

You say,

"It is well known from Maxwell’s theory that the speed of light in vacuum depends on the permittivity ε0 and permeability μ0 of the physical space ( 0 0 c 1   ). Since permittivity and permeability are properties of the physical space, the speed of light in vacuum is also a property of physical space and cannot be derived from the metric properties of coordinate space."

I believe that the medium of travel determines light's velocity and that space could be altered to increase an object's speed.


report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 11:50 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:53 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

report post as inappropriate

genies alan wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 07:30 GMT
It’s hard to find knowledgeable people on this topic, but you sound like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks

obat sesak nafas akibat asam lambung

obat isk

obat tukak lambung

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.