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 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.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
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
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

LLOYD OKOKO: on 4/17/15 at 13:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Re Castel, Thanks for essay which suckles on the sap of "past...

Branko Zivlak: on 4/13/15 at 12:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Rafael, Your attitude is interesting. “By the empirical evidence,...

Joe Fisher: on 4/1/15 at 18:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Castel, I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally...

Peter Jackson: on 3/20/15 at 21:38pm UTC, wrote Dear Rafael, I'm sure you'll find little specific comment and zero...

re castel: on 2/27/15 at 16:18pm UTC, wrote Thanks, Vladimir. I am glad that you read my stuff in spite of the...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/27/15 at 15:35pm UTC, wrote Dear Re Castel, Unfortunately, I can not copy your essay, because then I...

re castel: on 2/27/15 at 2:18am UTC, wrote Akinbo, Thanks for the comments. But, your second paragraph is...

Akinbo Ojo: on 2/26/15 at 17:57pm UTC, wrote Hello Castel, Well done for presenting your perspective. I agree that...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." in First Things First: The...

Steve Agnew: "There are some questions that do not seem to have answers in the classical..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "Yes, there are two very different narratives. The classical narrative works..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


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.


FQXi FORUM
October 14, 2019

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]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author re castel wrote on Jan. 28, 2015 @ 22:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

Herein 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 space-time 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 Bio

Castel is an independent researcher and author.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



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 space-time 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=mc2. But Einstein sent us into an excursion of the crappy idea of arbitrary space-time 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... :)

Bookmark and Share


Author re castel replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 17:31 GMT
www.kinematicrelativity.com

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author re castel replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 00:47 GMT
Gary,

The transformation factor for the genesis formula is (1-v/c)(1-v/c)-1 before the approximation on the reciprocal. Multiplying reciprocals is equal to 1, suggesting that the (1-v2/c2) 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.

Bookmark and Share



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 (1-v/c) gives the value of u = 500/(1-700/500) 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

Bookmark and Share
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 take-down 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 well-written essay. That is why I try to carefully write what is appropriately foundational. . .

More...

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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 1-d, the Lorentz 2-d, and now the 3-d 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!

Bookmark and Share



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.

Bookmark and Share



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 1-d Galilean transformation, we have the equations x=x'/(1-v/c) or t=t'/(1-v/c), or simply t=t'. Since the classical scientists consider space and time as non-transforming 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 (1-v/c), which is (c/c-v/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 2-d 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 c2/c2 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 mass-energy relation expressed by the famed formula. So, we have two points of proof (the Galilei-Newton transformations and the Lorentz-Einstein 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 1-d, 2-d, and 3-d 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

Bookmark and Share



Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 07:12 GMT
You've fallen for Einstein and it shows!

Smiles.

Regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author re castel replied on Feb. 19, 2015 @ 16:24 GMT
Huh?...

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share



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.

Bookmark and Share
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 1-d Galilean transformation, the 2-d Lorentz transformation, and the 3-d 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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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 non-linear 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 2010-11, 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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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 3-d space dimension, the one-time 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

Bookmark and Share
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 vis-a-vis 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 maths-physics 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.

Bookmark and Share
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.