Search FQXi

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

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

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
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

George: on 10/5/12 at 6:09am UTC, wrote Dear Gerry, Your judgment is excellent. I like your principles, despite I...

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

gerry klein: on 10/3/12 at 16:15pm UTC, wrote Constantinos; You are correct, physics is based on metaphysical...

Anonymous: on 10/3/12 at 14:48pm UTC, wrote Reply to Sergey Fedosin; Thank you for your support. I also support you....

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 7:16am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Constantinos Ragazas: on 10/1/12 at 15:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Gerry Klein, You have raised some deep misconceptions regarding...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 2:08am UTC, wrote Dear Gerry Klein Very interesting to see your essay. Kind Regards ! ...

Jayakar Joseph: on 9/19/12 at 4:19am UTC, wrote Dear Gerry Klein, With reference to Dirac’s essay abstract note, your...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

John Cox: "Lorraine, That clarifies, thanks. I'd be in the camp that argues for a..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Steve Dufourny: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT ARTICLES

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

Thermo-Demonics
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.

FQXi FORUM
January 21, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Fundamental Assumption That Is Wrong Is the Basic Concept That a Stationary Frame of Reference Can Be Used To Understand a Universe of Motion by Gerry Klein [refresh]

Author Gerry Klein wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 15:30 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay will explain the Erroneous Basic Physical assumption that is at the base of the edifice of thought of not only physics but also human thought in general. This most Basic of Concepts, useful in the correct place and time to further our understanding of earlier concepts of motion has outgrown its usefulness as a meaningful frame of reference and cannot any longer be used successfully to explain a Universe of motion, a Universe composed solely of Motion. This erroneous assumption has no longer any absolute factual counterpart, it never really did, to represent itself in either the material or non-material universe. This is the reason the mind of mankind has reached a particular level of knowledge and is unable to go beyond this level. How big is this? “There will have to be some new development that is quite unexpected, that we cannot even make a guess about” P. A. M. Dirac

Author Bio

Gerry Klein is a retired longshoreman, 67 years old, married, with 3 sons

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 12:28 GMT
Gerry,

In your essay you say that Einstein in his interpretation of observed results of experiments such as the Michelson‐Morley experiment which proved there is no objective stationary frame of reference used the stationary frame of reference subjectively to explain an experiment that just proved objectively is non‐existent. Your conclusion is that the Stationary Frame of Reference is the most fundamental assumption that is wrong at the foundation of Physics.

But what do you think about such Stationary Frame of Reference in which all the fluxes of gravitons are equal in all directions? In the Frame any body can be really in rest. See also Extended special theory of relativity .

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

Gerry Klein wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 05:30 GMT
Response to Sergey

Sergey,

Thanks for your comment, you identified exactly what I have tried to say in my essay.

I cannot do the same. There is a huge gulf between my reading your Essay and understanding it and the work you have done. I do not have the background. That said I sense a similarity of thought back of it to my own that caused you to want to know in the first place...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 04:19 GMT
Dear Gerry Klein,

With reference to Dirac’s essay abstract note, your argument on ‘Frame of reference’ is much realistic, in that infinite frames of references back in time without beginning indicates that ‘Dimensionality’ does not have any beginning.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 02:08 GMT
Dear Gerry Klein

Very interesting to see your essay.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 15:54 GMT
Dear Gerry Klein,

You have raised some deep misconceptions regarding 'motion' and the 'measure of motion'. I agree with you the current fundamental assumption stands in the way of correctly understanding our Universe. And this has created much confusion and many paradoxes and extreme theories to mask over these.

Though the measure of motion requires a 'stationary background' to reference the change in position of the moving object – what you call “Stationary Frame of Reference” – motion 'in itself' does not. While the 'measurement of motion' is 'relative' to the stationary reference frame, motion of an object in itself is 'absolute'. Were we to take the 'empty space' an object occupies as the reference frame – what I believe you call “Moving Frame of Reference” – we would measure the 'absolute motion' of an object relative to the frame of the space it occupies as always being constant! That is to say, “all physical objects are at rest relative to the physical space they occupy”. Thus, Einstein replaces Newton's 'absolute frame of reference' with 'absolute CSL'. But if we consider that Newton's 'absolute space' is the 'space an object occupies' then both of these notions are equivalent.

Please read and rate my essay, “The Metaphysics of Physics”, and support my efforts (as I have yours) for greater recognition by the physics community of new insights and ideas we both agree on.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

gerry klein replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 16:15 GMT
Constantinos;

You are correct, physics is based on metaphysical assumptions of which the "physics community" is totally unaware because they have been so quick to pay homage to their teachers that they forgot to demand that the "teachers" must, have to prove out the fundamental assumptions of which they are unaware of and have accepted from their "teachers". For like the "students" the generation before them as the present teachers have never seriously questioned the fundamental assumption as they both have incorrectly assumed the foundation at this stage must be correct. The foundation of thought that is the starting point of all philosophies, science, and or religion is absolutely wrong. For how else could you explain the uselessness of all 3 to solve the present problems of the human race.

Gerry Klein

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 07:16 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

Anonymous replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 14:48 GMT

Thank you for your support. I also support you. We are both pointed in the same correct direction and there are not many who are aware of what exactly is the correct direction. And may I say anyone who responds to either my explanation or yours or others like ours is also potentially on the correct path to a theory that accurately reflects the reality we experience. This for the simple reason that no one can meaningfuly respond if they have not, if they did not over a period of time by their intense thinking realize that something is very wrong with the conventional explanation that either science or religion presents.

thank you

Gerry Klein

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:12 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
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
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.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

George wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 06:09 GMT
Dear Gerry,

Your judgment is excellent. I like your principles, despite I am not yet study your work in details. Please you just check mine work (it actually is a introduction part of mine article). I am so hope it will by your heart and you will help me with your apprise (So sorry. The time is pressing). We will continue after, as I hope.