CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Idea of Motion Transformations as the Foundation of the Laws of Nature by re castel
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author re castel wrote on Jan. 28, 2015 @ 22:07 GMT
Essay AbstractHerein the simple analysis of the basic transformation equations reveals that the idea of motion transformations is the foundation of the laws of nature and such that the idea of the arbitrary spacetime transformations is in fact only an excursion. Herein it is emphasized that the mass and energy variables are substituted into the equations, instead of the space and time variables, precisely because what is fundamentally and appropriately considered in physics is purely the motion transformation and its result. And herein presented are the kinematical formula for the creation process due to gravity and the kinematical origin of gravity.
Author BioCastel is an independent researcher and author.
Download Essay PDF File
Author re castel wrote on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 15:02 GMT
Like some of you, I am also suggesting a paradigm shift. My main idea is simply that we can understand our maths in physics better if we use the classical idea of motion transformations and be less focused on Einstein's idea of arbitrary spacetime transformations.
The transformation equations are the foundation of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are laws of motion. Our physics equations are pretty much equations of motion.
If we consider that in our transformation equations we actually remove the space and time variables and substitute other variables to obtain insights into the physics of things, we should have the more successful interpretations of our maths in physics.
Einstein himself substituted the mass variables into the transformation equations and got his successful interpretation of the famed E=mc
^{2}. But Einstein sent us into an excursion of the crappy idea of arbitrary spacetime transformations. It has been costly. It has gotta end.
I think we should do a paradigm shift and go to the extensions of the classical idea of motion transformations.
If you want to know about what I've accordingly done so far, go to my website www.kinematicrelativity.com ... And for goodness, buy the eBook. You can also make a donation... :)
Author re castel replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 17:31 GMT
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 23:29 GMT
Re,
An interesting read. I tend to agree that the forces of nature are the result of transforms. Of course, determining those transforms is the problem. At least motion and displacement are things that we can measure and observe.
I'm not familiar with the Genesis tensor that you mentioned. Does it maintain Lorentz Invariance? I at first misread part of the work to think that you had written a (c^2)(v^2) + (c^4) term. Sometimes I see what I want to see.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author re castel replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 00:47 GMT
Gary,
The transformation factor for the genesis formula is (1v/c)(1v/c)
^{1} before the approximation on the reciprocal. Multiplying reciprocals is equal to 1, suggesting that the (1v
^{2}/c
^{2}) factor presents full invariance.
The Lorentz factor is the square root of the transformation factor for the genesis formula. The square root of 1 is 1, by which we say "Lorentz invariance."
So, yes and no. I hope you follow.
Regards.
basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 3, 2015 @ 09:44 GMT
Dear Sir,
We agree that the evolutionary laws of Nature have six fundamental aspects. However, time is not a dimension in the same sense as the other three space dimensions, which are invariant under mutual transformation. We can exchange any of the space dimensions with any other without disturbing the structure, i.e., the interface between the external relational space with the internal structural space. But such transformation is not possible with time. Thus, we describe these as: being (situation leading to its creation; or as you put it, motion – the substance of existence), becoming (its creation itself; or as you put it, time), growth (due to addition of other molecules, which, along with the two other factors following, can be in the three spatial dimensions), transformation (as a result), transmutation (due to the same effect  incompatible addition), destruction (change of form as a consequence; or as you put it, duration – the instance of existence). The motion transformations are perpetual (due to inertia) and deterministic processes. The duration transformations are action induced by the freewill of a conscious agent.
The transformations can be spatial or temporal or both. All transformations require energy and based on the quantum and nature of energy applied, they move at different velocities. However, your transformation equations consider each against the speed of light. We use the word speed consciously, because the velocity of light changes according to the density of the medium and there is no true vacuum. Thus, these transformation equations are applicable only to the quantum particles. Yet, you have given classical descriptions using these equations. For example, in the Galilean transformation, you have substituted t with x/c without defining c, whereas you say that γ is the transformation factor thereby c as the speed of light. You have used the factors v and c differently in your example of firing the bullet. This is confusing.
In your bullet example, the bullet along with the Gun was relatively at rest in the airplane, which was moving at 500 mph. This is the initial velocity. But once it is fired at the rate of 700 mph, the force applied to it ceases and after initial ejection, it would move due to inertia at the same rate of 700 mph, just like Maxwell predicted for light. When a fast bowler runs before delivering a cricket ball, his speed is not added to the ball’s speed – the running conditions his body to apply more energy, which determines the speed of the ball at the moment of ejection. In your example, unlike the player, the gun was relatively at rest inside the plane. How can you add the velocities? In that case, why not consider the motion relative to Sun or the galaxy? In fact, this is a deficiency in Newton’s second law.
In your example, you have quoted c = 500 mph. But earlier you have said t = x/c = x/500mph. Do you mean to say, this should be the new unit of time? In that case, according to your earlier statement “the threshold velocity c is any appropriate velocity that is not necessarily the velocity of light”, t can have any value. Then how do you compare time between two systems?
In your example, the initial velocity u’ = the “velocity of the airplane relative to the ground”, which you subsequently say as 500 mph. Since you say that c = 500 mph and v is 700 mph, your equation: u’ = u (1v/c) gives the value of u = 500/(1700/500) mph = 500/(2/5) = 1250 mph. But you have given the final velocity u = 1200 mph. How do you reconcile this? Since your subsequent explanations are based on these, we need not comment on that.
Request please take these comments in a positive spirit and clarify the doubts of lesser mortals like us.
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Author re castel wrote on Feb. 8, 2015 @ 15:41 GMT
Folks, this is one of those occasions when "silence is golden". But complete silence would be unkind, considering that the unfair takedown made me smile. So, let me say that I have carefully studied the ideas covered in my essay. I think the FQXi community deserves a wellwritten essay. That is why I try to carefully write what is appropriately foundational. . .
More...
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 17:38 GMT
Please remove the link commercial for your book from the "More" in the above comment or I will report is as being inappropriate. You can cite the url for your book in a comment.
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 05:36 GMT
Dear Sirs,
No personalities or commerce please. We are not here to score points. Why not reply to the queries raised by others?
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Author re castel wrote on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 06:36 GMT
Joe, if you can edit your entries here, you must be doing real well. And I can only congratulate you. But here's according to your suggestion regarding the url.
The following links to a page that contains a brief explanation regarding the main ideas in my book/eBook :
A Summary of the Propositions of Kinematic Relativity.
The page also contains answers for questions you may have regarding my FQXi essay.

On the commerce thing, basudeba, those who submitted an FQXi essay are very likely in here for the money. And most of us are in here to promote our ideas.
You don't have to buy anything at my website. The postings there are essentially FYI and mostly for free; and they are pretty much in support of my submitted essay.
As for the reply you want, I deemed it polite to simply ignore your rhetorical question regarding the Galilean transformation that I explained in my essay. Please try to remember the purpose of why we do the approximations in the calculus of our physics.

Please remember that the great scientists (Galilei, Newton, Lorentz, Einstein, and others) deeply considered the transformation equations  i.e., the Galilean 1d, the Lorentz 2d, and now the 3d transformation of which I think I am the first to have proponed with a deeper focus and interpretation in relation to the suggestion of a mathematical formula for the genesis of the cosmos.
Anybody who has got sense understands that the basic transformation equations are principal in our interpretations of the laws of nature.

The transformation equations may look simple. But, hey, even the great basudeba missed the necessary approximation.

Although some are here to make an honest offering at the altar in the temple of knowledge, don't let's make any pretense of the sort of indignation that some here try to bore us with.
Enjoy!
Author re castel wrote on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 06:41 GMT
That post sure looks 'terse'. But I was smiling and laughing while writing it.
Author re castel wrote on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 11:10 GMT
I guess I must do it for those who asked the questions.
Computing for the unprimed in the 1d Galilean transformation, we have the equations x=x'/(1v/c) or t=t'/(1v/c), or simply t=t'. Since the classical scientists consider space and time as nontransforming absolutes and since they consider the motion or velocity transformations, the space or time variables are replaced with the velocity variables u' and u that represent the differing velocities as viewed in the primed and unprimed frames of reference. The u' is the initial velocity that is equal to the velocity c  which is any velocity considered; and v is the added velocity.
The c variable basically represents the reference value for the velocity transformation; the c variable is the common denominator for the velocity addition according to the transformation factor (1v/c), which is (c/cv/c). And so, as suggested by the Galilean transformation factor, the c variable is any velocity considered and that becomes the reference for the velocity transformation on account of the added velocity v.
In the 2d Lorentz transformation, the c variable represents the velocity of light  not just any velocity. And according to Maxwell the velocity of light c remains the same in all frames of reference. So, in the Lorentz transformations the Galilean idea of velocity transformations is no longer valid. The u' and u variables that are respectively used to represent the initial and resultant velocities as accounted by the Galilean transformation are therefore no longer generally definitive.
Einstein apparently discovered that the mass variables m and m' may be admitted by substitution into the transformations equation, instead of the u and u' variables. The substitution indicated that other physical transformations occur instead of the velocity transformations. And, notably, a tacit premise is that space and time are not transformed as suggested by the fact that the space and time variables are removed and replaced by the mass variables. The equations show that the mass phenomenon and the electromagnetic phenomenon are involved in the transformations and not space or time.
We know that electromagnetic waves are forms of motion. And the transformation factor indicates that mass is clearly expressed in terms of c
^{2}/c
^{2} which is an expression that involves the electromagnetic phenomenon. I have argued that both the mass phenomenon and the electromagnetic phenomenon are constructs of motion. This is why I argue that only the motion transformation is valid and that the arbitrary space and time transformations of Einstein's theory of relativity is invalid.
The special relativity theory is apparently alright because it is mainly about the motion transformations that involve the mass phenomenon and the electromagnetic phenomenon. But general relativity that purports the 'motion' and transformations of space and time is illogical.
The motion transformation is true in the case of the Galilean velocity transformations. The motion transformation is also true in the case of the Lorentz transformations by which we have special relativity as accorded by the 'relativistic' mass formula and Einstein's massenergy relation expressed by the famed formula. So, we have two points of proof (the GalileiNewton transformations and the LorentzEinstein transformations) for motion transformation.
However, Einstein's general relativity  i.e., the relativity of the purported motion of space, the relativity of the purported motion of time, and the relativity of the motion of motion  is one grand gift of confusion that Einstein left us with.
I think the valid formulations may all be interpreted in terms of the transformations of motion. If we morefully embrace the fact that in the first place the defining premise is that of the consideration for the motion transformations, which is why in the transformation equations the space and time variables are removed and replaced with the variables (e.g., u, u', m, m', E, E') that represent motion constructs, I am convinced that we will find that it is all about motion transformations. I am convinced that we will find that our physics is all about motion transformations if we will seriously consider motion transformations in the strict sense.
I have detailed my explanations regarding the 1d, 2d, and 3d transformations that occur in nature. You can find my explanations in my book/ebook, my website, and in my FQXi essay. However, a radical paradigm shift is necessary in order to allow the appropriate understanding of the new scientific views that I propone.
All that's needed is a formal appreciation of the idea of simply the motion transformations  the pure kinematic relativity.
I don't know if it will happen with the help of FQXi. I doubt if the reputable minds of FQXi (e.g., Tegmark, Aguirre, Hawking, Guth, Smolin, Weinberg, and etc.) ever had a glimpse of my work. It seems that they listen ONLY to what they themselves are saying.
It seems that only a few here read my book/ebook and the other things that I have written. But, I'm hoping for the best.
Regards.
castel/www.kinematicrelativity.com
Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 07:12 GMT
You've fallen for Einstein and it shows!
Smiles.
Regards,
Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan
report post as inappropriate
Author re castel replied on Feb. 19, 2015 @ 16:24 GMT
Author re castel wrote on Feb. 20, 2015 @ 01:50 GMT
Not one criticism regarding the GENESIS FORMULA! The scientific community remains in stunned silence! :) Why?
Where is Smolin, Susskind, Rees, Guth, Velinkin, Linde, Penrose, Hawking, Tegmark, Aguirre, and the whole gang?
Are they so high up the altar in the temple of knowledge that they cannot consider answering the challenge regarding the GENESIS FORMULA?
The math is simple. The interpretation and premise given are straightforward. The suggestions from the GENESIS FORMULA regarding the structure of the cosmos and the nature and origin of gravity are clear.
Just say what's wrong or right about the GENESIS FORMULA and why.
Come on, gang! It's the least you could do for those who look up to you...
castel
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 17:57 GMT
Hello Castel,
Well done for presenting your perspective. I agree that transformation equations have a lot of light to shed on our physics so your attempt is commendable.
I don't quite agree with the aspect where you said that regarding Doppler frequency shifts of light, Lorentz transformations are more appropriate than Galilean. Velocities of source and observer can be removed or added to that of light and used to obtain the frequency shift. In Lorentz transformations velocity, v of source or observer when added to that of light remains c, i.e. v + c = c.
You may want to see opposing ideas that give space a role to play in motion, even though this is different from your views.
Wishing you all the best in this competition.
Regards,
Akinbo
*Please don't be discouraged if the high priests don't interact as you want. Forge ahead and refine your theory as appropriate.
report post as inappropriate
Author re castel replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 02:18 GMT
Akinbo,
Thanks for the comments.
But, your second paragraph is problematic. You seem to have failed to notice the differences in the appropriate applications of the 1d Galilean transformation, the 2d Lorentz transformation, and the 3d Castel transformation equations. I suggest you recheck their appropriate applications.
As for space, I like keeping it simple. Space simply gets occupied. Getting occupied is its sole function. Basic kinematics reveals that motions move motions, and the objects in motion (i.e., mass) are themselves kinetic constructs. Motions occur on the substance that occupies space. There is no such thing as the motion of space. The idea of the relative motion of space is an illusion  an ill usage and vision.
I wish you well.
Castel
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 15:35 GMT
Dear Re Castel,
Unfortunately, I can not copy your essay, because then I do translation using GOOGLE.
Kind regards,
Vladimir ideabank@yandex.ru
report post as inappropriate
Author re castel replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 16:18 GMT
Thanks, Vladimir.
I am glad that you read my stuff in spite of the language barrier.
My website actually gets plenty of traffic from Russia, Asia, and Western and Eastern Europe, sometimes more visitors than from North America. I am amazed at the intellectual excitement that EurAsians exhibit.
Thanks again.
Regards,
Castel
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 21:38 GMT
Dear Rafael,
I'm sure you'll find little specific comment and zero falsification of the consistent model you well describe. I agree the one comment offered, from Akinbo, was wrong. The Lorentz Factor is indeed both required and logically derivable. I've shown how it describes the physical implementation of the local propagation limit c as a nonlinear optic effect.
Optical breakdown wavelength limit gamma. Of course none of that is surprising as you'll recall our past close agreement. I also no longer find it surprising that those schooled in present assumptions are entirely unequipped to perceive the simple solution hiding before our eyes. As my '2020 Vision' essay from 201011, I estimate another 5 years of intellectual evolution at least.
I consider your essay is an admirable and valuable attempt to explain in clear English and mathematics how an automobile works to a tribe who have learned only Swahili and can't even conceive of other languages let alone automobiles! (Their witchdoctors still insist there's only one possible valid language, even here!)
Your 1.8 score is a travesty, only measuring the understanding of the tribe. I suspect we must work long term on translation more than science! Top marks on the way to help. I hope you'll read and find mine equally consistent, though I progress to the 'unification' implications of the same model, and the mathematical aspects helping to confound mainstream understanding.
Well done again, keep up the good work, and I hope your essay continues rising.
Very best wishes,
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 18:39 GMT
Dear Mr. Castel,
I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.
I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.
All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 12:56 GMT
Dear Rafael,
Your attitude is interesting.
“By the empirical evidence, there are two fundamental processes. They are motion and duration.”
But follow further wrong:
“The laws of nature basically consider six fundamental essences. The 3d space dimension, the onetime dimension d, motion, duration, the substance of existence, and the instance of existence.”
Dimensions are not essences.
In my essay, you can see that I'm getting results, with 3 essences and without dimensions. Dimensions are not needed at all.
Regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
LLOYD TAMARAPREYE OKOKO wrote on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 13:57 GMT
Dear Re Castel,
Thanks for essay which suckles on the sap of "past masters".Your inclination to;not only approximate but further the preoccupations of Newton and Einsteen visavis their interpretations of the transformation equations is a step in the right direction.
I share your view that we cannot underestimate the possibiliy that a much more deeper analysis of the fundamental equations could predispose a more profound scientific understanding of the mathsphysics nexus.Following the trend of your arguments, I quite agree that "the mathematics in our physics may correctly be considered only according to the idea of purely the motion transformations".
Keep on flourishing.
Lloyd Tamarapreye Okoko.
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.