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 forums@fqxi.org 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.

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

read/discuss

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**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.

read/discuss • winners

**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

read/discuss • winners

**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*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/4/12 at 4:06am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/2/12 at 6:37am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 9/28/12 at 21:48pm UTC, wrote Viraj We agree about the inherent foundational errors and seemingly most...

**Viraj Fernando**: *on* 9/27/12 at 1:48am UTC, wrote Sergey, In the equation (Mc2)2 + (pc)2 = (gamma. Mc2)2 Left hand side...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 9/26/12 at 5:31am UTC, wrote Dear Viraj, Mass of particle is a constant and is determined with the help...

**Viraj Fernando**: *on* 9/25/12 at 4:04am UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, You wrote: “I think the change of frequency of GPS clocks...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 9/24/12 at 16:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Viraj, I think the change of frequency of GPS clocks with altitude is...

**Wilhelmus de Wilde**: *on* 9/21/12 at 15:20pm UTC, wrote Dear Viraj, As we are both retired we have the time to think (I think). ...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Robert McEachern**: ""At least that's the premise." That's the problem. "the theorems that..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Malcolm Riddoch**: "@Robert: ""This latter, Ψ(U), can't describe a 'drug test' can it?" For..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**John Cox**: "Lorraine, I briefly described the relationship of mass to inertia..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

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

**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

*click titles to read 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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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.

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 24, 2020

CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]

TOPIC: A Treatise on Foundational Problems of Physics by Viraj Prema Fernando [refresh]

TOPIC: A Treatise on Foundational Problems of Physics by Viraj Prema Fernando [refresh]

Abstract: In the Preface to the Principia, Newton has clearly stated the reason why he has resorted to space time mechanics was because he was unable to figure out (1) how the least particles (read as quanta of energy) behaved and (2) Geometric physics (yet to be found) is the most accurate, and his provisional mechanics less accurate. (3) Hopes his mechanics would be a stepping stone to a ‘Truer method of Philosophy”. This “Truer Method” is Geometrodynamics of Energy (GDE). The guiding philosophy of Geometrodynamics of Energy (GDE) that we develop in this paper, has been inspired by the above intuitive notions of Newton, Leibniz, Maxwell, Einstein and those of others founders in regard to the foundational problems which they confronted, such as the point mass without an internal structure, centrifugal force with no identifiable source of energy underlying it, closed system. With GDE all these foundational problems and many more are overcome. GDE contends that phenomena arise from interactions of energy, and these interactions are geometrically determined, and that by discerning the various geometrical algorithms which determine these interactions, the concepts and laws connecting them with phenomena can be discovered. GDE therefore concerns, geometrical representation of interactions of energy that underlie various phenomena.

Bio: Author is an Independent Researcher in History and Philosophy of Physics. He has spent the last twenty years researching on the foundational problems of physics and the reason why classical mechanics could not explain relativistic phenomena, and to find ways to explain these phenomena as in terms of states of changes of energy as Maxwell suggested independent of Special Relativity. The author is a Naval Architect by profession (now retired). Lives in Toronto Canada.

Dear Viraj,

I have read your essay and appreciate your viewpoint. Finally, do you agree that the two founding postulates of Relativity are wrong? Your proposal of GDE needs to be studied in depth.

All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach.

As you know, 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.

Kindly read my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

I have read your essay and appreciate your viewpoint. Finally, do you agree that the two founding postulates of Relativity are wrong? Your proposal of GDE needs to be studied in depth.

All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach.

As you know, 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.

Kindly read my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

Dear Gurchan,

Thanks for your mail and thanks for looking through my paper. I will certainly read your paper and comment.

For the time being I will say that Einstein-Poincare Principle of Relativity is flawed and it has aggravated the crisis. Galileo-Newton principle is correct. If you like I can explain the difference between the two.

Einstein's assumption of constancy of the velocity of light is correct, but Einstein has not explained the physics behind it. My EndNote3 (Leibniz' Internal Principle) gives this explanation. I would like you to comment on this position.

The primacy of space and time concepts, and velocity their derrivative is a fiction created by Newton. We need to base physics on energy and its components as primary concept. Velocity v is the intensive component of momentum p,and inertia M is its extensive component such that p = Mv (just like in heat Q = Vp). Trying to prove Newton's fictions right will not help us out of the crisis. To escape from Newton's fictions we need to be guided by Newton's other insights written in the Principia and in the Queries plus Maxwell's insights in Matter and Motion.

Best regards,

Viraj

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your mail and thanks for looking through my paper. I will certainly read your paper and comment.

For the time being I will say that Einstein-Poincare Principle of Relativity is flawed and it has aggravated the crisis. Galileo-Newton principle is correct. If you like I can explain the difference between the two.

Einstein's assumption of constancy of the velocity of light is correct, but Einstein has not explained the physics behind it. My EndNote3 (Leibniz' Internal Principle) gives this explanation. I would like you to comment on this position.

The primacy of space and time concepts, and velocity their derrivative is a fiction created by Newton. We need to base physics on energy and its components as primary concept. Velocity v is the intensive component of momentum p,and inertia M is its extensive component such that p = Mv (just like in heat Q = Vp). Trying to prove Newton's fictions right will not help us out of the crisis. To escape from Newton's fictions we need to be guided by Newton's other insights written in the Principia and in the Queries plus Maxwell's insights in Matter and Motion.

Best regards,

Viraj

report post as inappropriate

Dear Gurchan,

An interesting essay on the foundational issues confronting scientists seeking a foundational geometry for the unification of Physics.

May I suggest EQUILATERAL geometries as the foundation you seek [as outlined in my essay - Tetryonics - the charged geometry of mass-ENERGY-Matter in motion]

I'm sure you will see many problematic phenomena in QM, QED, Chemistry and Cosmology all explained through this simple geometry [in deference to spheres].

Of note is the fact that in physics SQUARE numbered quanta form EQUILATERAL geometries (and it is this geometry that determines all our coupling constants etc].

Sincerely

attachments: Figure_20.05__Quantum_Mechanics_800x600.jpg, EM_massENERGYMatter_800x600.jpg

report post as inappropriate

An interesting essay on the foundational issues confronting scientists seeking a foundational geometry for the unification of Physics.

May I suggest EQUILATERAL geometries as the foundation you seek [as outlined in my essay - Tetryonics - the charged geometry of mass-ENERGY-Matter in motion]

I'm sure you will see many problematic phenomena in QM, QED, Chemistry and Cosmology all explained through this simple geometry [in deference to spheres].

Of note is the fact that in physics SQUARE numbered quanta form EQUILATERAL geometries (and it is this geometry that determines all our coupling constants etc].

Sincerely

attachments: Figure_20.05__Quantum_Mechanics_800x600.jpg, EM_massENERGYMatter_800x600.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Dear Viraj,

It seems in formula before Fig 1 there should be (Gamma Mc^{2})^{2}, not Gamma Mc^{2}. In explanation of centrifugal force you point out to field energy that has flown into the system that is the underlying source of the centrifugal force. Then if the energy is flown into system the energy of the system must be rise all the time?

I hope you understand that your explanation of the cause of slowing down of internal processes for bodies in motion is only an interpretation of motion with the help of Lorentz transformations. In their turn the Lorentz transformations are result of axioms of SRT, see Extended special theory of relativity . But the constancy of light speed is conventional axiom which is the result of spacetime measurements by electromagnetic waves only. In other words if we change spacetime measurements or take another waves and their speed we will find another value of slowing down of internal processes and other effects of relativity.

In your GDE Transformation there is only transformation of sizes. How about transformation of time?

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

It seems in formula before Fig 1 there should be (Gamma Mc

I hope you understand that your explanation of the cause of slowing down of internal processes for bodies in motion is only an interpretation of motion with the help of Lorentz transformations. In their turn the Lorentz transformations are result of axioms of SRT, see Extended special theory of relativity . But the constancy of light speed is conventional axiom which is the result of spacetime measurements by electromagnetic waves only. In other words if we change spacetime measurements or take another waves and their speed we will find another value of slowing down of internal processes and other effects of relativity.

In your GDE Transformation there is only transformation of sizes. How about transformation of time?

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for the post and for showing the typo. Apart from that the diagrams have lost parts and will have to request FQXi to insert the correct one.

I will address the matters you have raised on an itemized basis.

1. Centrifugal Force. “field energy that has flown into the system …… source of the centrifugal force. Then …. energy of the system must be...

view entire post

Thanks for the post and for showing the typo. Apart from that the diagrams have lost parts and will have to request FQXi to insert the correct one.

I will address the matters you have raised on an itemized basis.

1. Centrifugal Force. “field energy that has flown into the system …… source of the centrifugal force. Then …. energy of the system must be...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Sergey,

I am re-posting para 5. Sorry I will have to learn to insert equation using LaTex. Until then ....

5. “In your GDE Transformation there is only transformation of sizes. How about transformation of time?”

This is a very good point which will enable GDE transformation to be verified by experiment. Thanks.

a) Let us take the case of the muon in motion which Feynman talks about (ref 8 of my paper). If one were to measure its displacement, do you agree that it should conform to LT - x’ = (x- ut)/(1- u2/c2)1/2?

b) Then how come the time change is not given by LT of time t’ = t(1- xu/c2)/(1- u2/c2)1/2 but by t” = t/(1-v2/c2)1/2?. As I have shown the time change is proportional to the fraction of energy lost.

d) There will be a small time change in relation to the LT too. Here there is an influx of energy from the field, and increase of a fraction of energy. Accordingly the time of the muon will be

T = [t.(1- u2/c2)1/2]/(1- v2/c2)1/2

Best regards,

Viraj

report post as inappropriate

I am re-posting para 5. Sorry I will have to learn to insert equation using LaTex. Until then ....

5. “In your GDE Transformation there is only transformation of sizes. How about transformation of time?”

This is a very good point which will enable GDE transformation to be verified by experiment. Thanks.

a) Let us take the case of the muon in motion which Feynman talks about (ref 8 of my paper). If one were to measure its displacement, do you agree that it should conform to LT - x’ = (x- ut)/(1- u2/c2)1/2?

b) Then how come the time change is not given by LT of time t’ = t(1- xu/c2)/(1- u2/c2)1/2 but by t” = t/(1-v2/c2)1/2?. As I have shown the time change is proportional to the fraction of energy lost.

d) There will be a small time change in relation to the LT too. Here there is an influx of energy from the field, and increase of a fraction of energy. Accordingly the time of the muon will be

T = [t.(1- u2/c2)1/2]/(1- v2/c2)1/2

Best regards,

Viraj

report post as inappropriate

Dear Viraj,

If the particle is in the rest in a frame K` then the speed of the particle V` is zero in the frame K` and we can test properties of the particle using only the speed u of the frame K` relative to laboratory frame K. So we come to Lorentz transformations. If the speed V` is not zero in the K` then there is the rule of speed summation for the speed of particle V in K, the speeds u and V`. Then, what is the speed in your transformation? Is it u or V` ?

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

If the particle is in the rest in a frame K` then the speed of the particle V` is zero in the frame K` and we can test properties of the particle using only the speed u of the frame K` relative to laboratory frame K. So we come to Lorentz transformations. If the speed V` is not zero in the K` then there is the rule of speed summation for the speed of particle V in K, the speeds u and V`. Then, what is the speed in your transformation? Is it u or V` ?

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

Dear Viraj Prema Fernando,

In Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter universe model, point mass is substituted as eigen-rotational string segments and the eigen-rotations are the energy by intrinsic thermodynamics of universe, in that its energy dynamics is sustained by the state changes of energy in segmental localities.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

In Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter universe model, point mass is substituted as eigen-rotational string segments and the eigen-rotations are the energy by intrinsic thermodynamics of universe, in that its energy dynamics is sustained by the state changes of energy in segmental localities.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Dear Viraj

Your essay touches many diverse topics, and I agree with you that in his SR Einstein diverted physics into a 'fictitious' (i.e. physically unrealistic) solution. Very true. By postulating that c is constant he forced reality to contort in accordance with this ad-hoc idea.

The most important point you raised, in my opinion, is that space and time are emergent from something more basic. And I thank you for pointing out Leibnitz' ideas - I have to study them more carefully. In my Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) too space and time are emergent from something more basic.

I am not qualified to judge your GDE - at my age I should concentrate whatever energy I have to presenting my (BU) in a more concise and understandable way. As you wisely point out the program to solve the problems of physics is a group effort- we at fqxi present 'seed ideas' that hopefully will be accepted and nourished by those who see the same need for change that we do, but who are also fully proficient in QM RT. Only by showing that our ideas can replace current paradigms in a more efficient way will the physics community accept our notions of what are the correct foundational issues in physics.

I wish you all success.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Your essay touches many diverse topics, and I agree with you that in his SR Einstein diverted physics into a 'fictitious' (i.e. physically unrealistic) solution. Very true. By postulating that c is constant he forced reality to contort in accordance with this ad-hoc idea.

The most important point you raised, in my opinion, is that space and time are emergent from something more basic. And I thank you for pointing out Leibnitz' ideas - I have to study them more carefully. In my Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) too space and time are emergent from something more basic.

I am not qualified to judge your GDE - at my age I should concentrate whatever energy I have to presenting my (BU) in a more concise and understandable way. As you wisely point out the program to solve the problems of physics is a group effort- we at fqxi present 'seed ideas' that hopefully will be accepted and nourished by those who see the same need for change that we do, but who are also fully proficient in QM RT. Only by showing that our ideas can replace current paradigms in a more efficient way will the physics community accept our notions of what are the correct foundational issues in physics.

I wish you all success.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hi Viraj. FUNDAMENTAL inertial and gravitational equivalency (and balancing) has never been explained. (Combining, including, and balancing opposites is essential. Instantaneity and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded would have to be accounted for as well in any truly fundamental understanding of physics.

The question is how does true and fundamental inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing account for fundamentally stabilized and balanced distance in/of space. This would also involve fundamentally balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. This would fundamentally balance and average acceleration as well -- AS THIS WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY DEMONSTRATE F=MA. EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF GRAVITY LACKS THIS. THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION IN PHYSICS. DO YOU AGREE?

report post as inappropriate

The question is how does true and fundamental inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing account for fundamentally stabilized and balanced distance in/of space. This would also involve fundamentally balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. This would fundamentally balance and average acceleration as well -- AS THIS WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY DEMONSTRATE F=MA. EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF GRAVITY LACKS THIS. THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION IN PHYSICS. DO YOU AGREE?

report post as inappropriate

Dear Viraj,

With your essay N2 A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc I understand your thesis better now. Some questions there are about AD and BD at fig. 1B. AD is a part of AC and AC can be calculated through AB and BC. AC is relativistic energy and AD is a part of this energy. But in your opinion BD is also important. I think you should take in account DC instead of BD...

view entire post

With your essay N2 A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc I understand your thesis better now. Some questions there are about AD and BD at fig. 1B. AD is a part of AC and AC can be calculated through AB and BC. AC is relativistic energy and AD is a part of this energy. But in your opinion BD is also important. I think you should take in account DC instead of BD...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

You wrote: “I can not understand why you brake up the energy Mvc with the help of speed u ? The particle speed v is relative to the centre of inertia of system of particles, and the speed u is the speed of system of particles as a whole. These speeds are not correlated with each other. So can you prove that Mvc( 1-u/c) is a physical quantity and has physical...

view entire post

You wrote: “I can not understand why you brake up the energy Mvc with the help of speed u ? The particle speed v is relative to the centre of inertia of system of particles, and the speed u is the speed of system of particles as a whole. These speeds are not correlated with each other. So can you prove that Mvc( 1-u/c) is a physical quantity and has physical...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

Here are my replies to your other concerns:

You wrote: “Some questions there are about AD and BD at fig. 1B. AD is a part of AC and AC can be calculated through AB and BC. AC is relativistic energy and AD is a part of this energy. But in your opinion BD is also important. I think you should take in account DC instead of BD since DC is a part of AC which is the...

view entire post

Here are my replies to your other concerns:

You wrote: “Some questions there are about AD and BD at fig. 1B. AD is a part of AC and AC can be calculated through AB and BC. AC is relativistic energy and AD is a part of this energy. But in your opinion BD is also important. I think you should take in account DC instead of BD since DC is a part of AC which is the...

view entire post

attachments: THE_TWO_SUBSYSTEMS_AND_THE_LORENTZ_FORCE.doc

report post as inappropriate

Dear Viraj,

You write < Mass of a body depends on the distance from the other body. This means that when the earth is in perihelion it has a lesser mass than when it is at aphelion. > I want say that there is an opposite situation - when Earth is closer to the Sun (in perihelion) then the mass of the Earth must increase. See the article: Fedosin S.G. The Hamiltonian in covariant theory of gravitation. vixra.org, 22 May 2012. About your reference THE_TWO_SUBSYSTEMS_AND_THE_LORENTZ_FORCE.doc I can say the next: The mass and the charge of particle are constant in special relativity. The more energy the more speed the more Lorentz factor but mass is constant. For derivation of Lorentz force you can take electric force and apply to it Lorentz transformation. The same is true for 4-vector of energy-momentum - after Lorentz transformation we find formula for relativistic energy with Mc2 and Mvc components.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

You write < Mass of a body depends on the distance from the other body. This means that when the earth is in perihelion it has a lesser mass than when it is at aphelion. > I want say that there is an opposite situation - when Earth is closer to the Sun (in perihelion) then the mass of the Earth must increase. See the article: Fedosin S.G. The Hamiltonian in covariant theory of gravitation. vixra.org, 22 May 2012. About your reference THE_TWO_SUBSYSTEMS_AND_THE_LORENTZ_FORCE.doc I can say the next: The mass and the charge of particle are constant in special relativity. The more energy the more speed the more Lorentz factor but mass is constant. For derivation of Lorentz force you can take electric force and apply to it Lorentz transformation. The same is true for 4-vector of energy-momentum - after Lorentz transformation we find formula for relativistic energy with Mc2 and Mvc components.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

When I wrote:” Mass of a body depends on the distance from the other body. This means that when the earth is in perihelion it has a lesser mass than when it is at aphelion”, I came to this conclusion from the fact that in a GPS clock when the altitude is increased the clock gains time. Why before the launch of the satellite energy E = hf when in orbit E’ = hf’. In GPS technology, clock rate is directly proportional to frequency. So the clock rate increase is due to the increase of the frequency. This means f’ is greater than f. Hence E’/c2 is greater than E/c2. Which means that the mass of the caesium atom increases when it is further away from the earth.

Sergey, I do not dispute that in SRT mass and the charge are constant. But I do not accept SRT. Do you want me to accept constancy of mass and charge just because SRT says so?

Similar to the case of mass increasing when the atomic clock is in orbit due to the altitude increase, due to its orbital motion there is an energy decrease, (hence a mass decrease). In the case f’ is less than f this reflects as the slowing down of the clock.

Analogical to the energy decrease (hence mass decrease) when an uncharged particle is in motion, there is a charge decrease when a charged particle is in motion. Please have a look at the small article on the Lorentz force I sent previously and let me know what you think. I brought up the Lorentz force, because you said that in my Fig. 1B DC has no meaning. Lorentz force paper AD = q.cos(theta) = q1 and DC = q.sin(theta) tan(theta) = q2. Lorentz force is found on this basis.

With you method mentioned do you derive the expression for the Lorentz force and simply and accurately as mine? I would like to see your derivation.

Best regards,

Viraj

attachments: 7_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc, 1_THE_TWO_SUBSYSTEMS_AND_THE_LORENTZ_FORCE.doc

report post as inappropriate

When I wrote:” Mass of a body depends on the distance from the other body. This means that when the earth is in perihelion it has a lesser mass than when it is at aphelion”, I came to this conclusion from the fact that in a GPS clock when the altitude is increased the clock gains time. Why before the launch of the satellite energy E = hf when in orbit E’ = hf’. In GPS technology, clock rate is directly proportional to frequency. So the clock rate increase is due to the increase of the frequency. This means f’ is greater than f. Hence E’/c2 is greater than E/c2. Which means that the mass of the caesium atom increases when it is further away from the earth.

Sergey, I do not dispute that in SRT mass and the charge are constant. But I do not accept SRT. Do you want me to accept constancy of mass and charge just because SRT says so?

Similar to the case of mass increasing when the atomic clock is in orbit due to the altitude increase, due to its orbital motion there is an energy decrease, (hence a mass decrease). In the case f’ is less than f this reflects as the slowing down of the clock.

Analogical to the energy decrease (hence mass decrease) when an uncharged particle is in motion, there is a charge decrease when a charged particle is in motion. Please have a look at the small article on the Lorentz force I sent previously and let me know what you think. I brought up the Lorentz force, because you said that in my Fig. 1B DC has no meaning. Lorentz force paper AD = q.cos(theta) = q1 and DC = q.sin(theta) tan(theta) = q2. Lorentz force is found on this basis.

With you method mentioned do you derive the expression for the Lorentz force and simply and accurately as mine? I would like to see your derivation.

Best regards,

Viraj

attachments: 7_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc, 1_THE_TWO_SUBSYSTEMS_AND_THE_LORENTZ_FORCE.doc

report post as inappropriate

Dear Viraj,

I have read and rated your essay as you requested. I am not sure why it was rated so low, but my impression is that many authors automatically rate other essays low to boost their own standing. My belief is that its standing will improve as more serious authors read it.

I am in almost complete agreement with the philosophy and foundational ideas behind your approach. There are aspects of the approach itself that I either disagree with or do not yet adequately understand. Here are my remarks.

Background results and philosophy:

1. “Leibniz’s position was that space and time are not substantial, but phenomenal forms through which relations of substances manifest…. …This suggests that the only way out of this crisis is

to cut off the Gordian knot of space-time, and to find a new way to explain phenomena independent of the primacy of concepts of space and time. “ I absolutely agree. Also, I will point out that this is exactly the objective of my approach to viewing spacetime as a way of talking about cause and effect (causal metric hypothesis).

2. Various scientists (Liebniz, Riemann, Einstein) have suspected that the manifold structure of spacetime is fictitious, and “Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas…” To my mind, the “simplest of mathematical ideas” is a relation (such as “less than”). For example, given any pair of distinct natural numbers A and B, either A

report post as inappropriate

I have read and rated your essay as you requested. I am not sure why it was rated so low, but my impression is that many authors automatically rate other essays low to boost their own standing. My belief is that its standing will improve as more serious authors read it.

I am in almost complete agreement with the philosophy and foundational ideas behind your approach. There are aspects of the approach itself that I either disagree with or do not yet adequately understand. Here are my remarks.

Background results and philosophy:

1. “Leibniz’s position was that space and time are not substantial, but phenomenal forms through which relations of substances manifest…. …This suggests that the only way out of this crisis is

to cut off the Gordian knot of space-time, and to find a new way to explain phenomena independent of the primacy of concepts of space and time. “ I absolutely agree. Also, I will point out that this is exactly the objective of my approach to viewing spacetime as a way of talking about cause and effect (causal metric hypothesis).

2. Various scientists (Liebniz, Riemann, Einstein) have suspected that the manifold structure of spacetime is fictitious, and “Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas…” To my mind, the “simplest of mathematical ideas” is a relation (such as “less than”). For example, given any pair of distinct natural numbers A and B, either A

report post as inappropriate

Dear Viraj,

This got cut off somehow. I resume with item 2.

2. Various scientists (Liebniz, Riemann, Einstein) have suspected that the manifold structure of spacetime is fictitious, and “Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas…” To my mind, the “simplest of mathematical ideas” is a relation (such as “less than”). For example, given any pair of distinct natural numbers A and B, either A

report post as inappropriate

This got cut off somehow. I resume with item 2.

2. Various scientists (Liebniz, Riemann, Einstein) have suspected that the manifold structure of spacetime is fictitious, and “Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas…” To my mind, the “simplest of mathematical ideas” is a relation (such as “less than”). For example, given any pair of distinct natural numbers A and B, either A

report post as inappropriate

Well, let me try again... it wants to delete everything after the "less than" sign.

2. Various scientists (Liebniz, Riemann, Einstein) have suspected that the manifold structure of spacetime is fictitious, and “Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas…” To my mind, the “simplest of mathematical ideas” is a relation (such as...

view entire post

2. Various scientists (Liebniz, Riemann, Einstein) have suspected that the manifold structure of spacetime is fictitious, and “Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas…” To my mind, the “simplest of mathematical ideas” is a relation (such as...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben,

You have gone through my paper extentsively. Thanks. Pls give me some time to go through yours once again and make my comments. In the meantime I rated yours on its merit and your essay is now in position 3.

I will have to respond to your comments part by part, since the posts cannot be too long. In this post I will take up your comment about “Lorentz...

view entire post

You have gone through my paper extentsively. Thanks. Pls give me some time to go through yours once again and make my comments. In the meantime I rated yours on its merit and your essay is now in position 3.

I will have to respond to your comments part by part, since the posts cannot be too long. In this post I will take up your comment about “Lorentz...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Viraj,

As we are both retired we have the time to think (I think).

Spacetime is an illusion, the BB is a thought experiment and inflation a result of it. I think you can agree with that.

If you have somle spare time pls read (and rate) "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION"

Good luck

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

As we are both retired we have the time to think (I think).

Spacetime is an illusion, the BB is a thought experiment and inflation a result of it. I think you can agree with that.

If you have somle spare time pls read (and rate) "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION"

Good luck

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Dear Viraj,

I think the change of frequency of GPS clocks with altitude is not directly connected with the change of mass of the clocks. In SRT mass and charge are constant since in SRT there is not of acceleration of reference frames. In SRT approximation the Maxwell equation may be rewritten in four-dimensional form. Then if is electromagnetic tensor, is 4-current, is stress-energy of electromagnetic field, then electromagnetic 4-force density is: From here in contravariant index 4-force is: Where is electric field strength, is 3-vector of current density, c is the speed of light, is 3-vector of force density and is charge density in motion, is magnetic induction. If 4-vector of force multiply with the volume of moving particle taking in account Lorentz contraction of the volume then we find total force applied to the particle by electromagnetic field: where q is charge and is velocity of the particle. So for the particle we have 4-vector of force: The same picture is for gravitational force in Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation (LITG).

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I think the change of frequency of GPS clocks with altitude is not directly connected with the change of mass of the clocks. In SRT mass and charge are constant since in SRT there is not of acceleration of reference frames. In SRT approximation the Maxwell equation may be rewritten in four-dimensional form. Then if is electromagnetic tensor, is 4-current, is stress-energy of electromagnetic field, then electromagnetic 4-force density is: From here in contravariant index 4-force is: Where is electric field strength, is 3-vector of current density, c is the speed of light, is 3-vector of force density and is charge density in motion, is magnetic induction. If 4-vector of force multiply with the volume of moving particle taking in account Lorentz contraction of the volume then we find total force applied to the particle by electromagnetic field: where q is charge and is velocity of the particle. So for the particle we have 4-vector of force: The same picture is for gravitational force in Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation (LITG).

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sergey,

You wrote: “I think the change of frequency of GPS clocks with altitude is not directly connected with the change of mass of the clocks. In SRT mass and charge are constant since in SRT there is not of acceleration of reference frames”.

(1) Contrary to your claim that mass remains constant, is it not the case that SRT’s contention is that a mass of a particle...

view entire post

You wrote: “I think the change of frequency of GPS clocks with altitude is not directly connected with the change of mass of the clocks. In SRT mass and charge are constant since in SRT there is not of acceleration of reference frames”.

(1) Contrary to your claim that mass remains constant, is it not the case that SRT’s contention is that a mass of a particle...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Viraj,

Mass of particle is a constant and is determined with the help of energy E and momentum p: E and p may be increased under action of force but m is constant. About slow down of internal processes of particle in motion. It is so only in the case if we shall register it with the help of electromagnetic waves with their speed c. If we take another wave with other speed the result will be another. About your geometrical approach. I think it is possible to use geometry for deducing of SRT results. But you must give good explanation at every step.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Mass of particle is a constant and is determined with the help of energy E and momentum p: E and p may be increased under action of force but m is constant. About slow down of internal processes of particle in motion. It is so only in the case if we shall register it with the help of electromagnetic waves with their speed c. If we take another wave with other speed the result will be another. About your geometrical approach. I think it is possible to use geometry for deducing of SRT results. But you must give good explanation at every step.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey,

In the equation (Mc2)2 + (pc)2 = (gamma. Mc2)2

Left hand side represents the initial state before the interaction and the right hand side represents the final state after the interaction. The question is whether the mass remains constant after the interaction.

It is not correct to carry over the term (pc)2 to the other side and mix up the terms of the intial sate and the final state to determine the mass of the final state. In fact what you have done is to say:

“mass of the intial state” = “mass of initial state”

Thanks for letting me know that my geometric approach is workable in your opinion.

Best regards,

Viraj

report post as inappropriate

In the equation (Mc2)2 + (pc)2 = (gamma. Mc2)2

Left hand side represents the initial state before the interaction and the right hand side represents the final state after the interaction. The question is whether the mass remains constant after the interaction.

It is not correct to carry over the term (pc)2 to the other side and mix up the terms of the intial sate and the final state to determine the mass of the final state. In fact what you have done is to say:

“mass of the intial state” = “mass of initial state”

Thanks for letting me know that my geometric approach is workable in your opinion.

Best regards,

Viraj

report post as inappropriate

Viraj

We agree about the inherent foundational errors and seemingly most other things. Perhaps we view the world similarly, what kind of boats did you design as a Naval Architect? I trained as an Architect and also worked in fluid dynamics and yacht design. (My own boat recently won the Solent IRC championships overall). Super essay, I agree with almost all, and a good score coming. I felt while reading that I could almost have written it myself, but probably not as clearly.

I decided a while ago that we need "to find ways to explain these phenomena as in terms of states of changes of energy."

I suggest a 'simplest conceivable NON mathematical idea' was yet to be found, and describe one that seems to work very well. It involves kinetics and waves, but as someone used to the dynamics of boats negotiating waves I assume that's not a problem. It's a multi part self build ontological construction with foundations in logic, that seems to me too unify relativity and QM. I'm really interested in your view as to whether you see it as heading 'the right way.'

Very best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

We agree about the inherent foundational errors and seemingly most other things. Perhaps we view the world similarly, what kind of boats did you design as a Naval Architect? I trained as an Architect and also worked in fluid dynamics and yacht design. (My own boat recently won the Solent IRC championships overall). Super essay, I agree with almost all, and a good score coming. I felt while reading that I could almost have written it myself, but probably not as clearly.

I decided a while ago that we need "to find ways to explain these phenomena as in terms of states of changes of energy."

I suggest a 'simplest conceivable NON mathematical idea' was yet to be found, and describe one that seems to work very well. It involves kinetics and waves, but as someone used to the dynamics of boats negotiating waves I assume that's not a problem. It's a multi part self build ontological construction with foundations in logic, that seems to me too unify relativity and QM. I'm really interested in your view as to whether you see it as heading 'the right way.'

Very best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

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

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

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 and 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: or or 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.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.