CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]
TOPIC:
REASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICS by basudeba mishra
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author basudeba mishra wrote on Jan. 28, 2015 @ 22:07 GMT
Essay AbstractThe validity of a mathematical statement is judged by its logical consistency. The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality. Relations between material objects must be expressed in a language compatible with the way in which objects in the real world actually interact - through the transmission/reception of mass/energy/information. Often we overlook this aspect and land at undecidable propositions – mathematics not in conformity with physics. These are mistaken as mathematical structures, though real mathematical structures are natural laws that give quantitative descriptions of physical phenomena – hence related to observables only. Mathematics explains how much one quantity, whether scalar or vector; accumulate or reduce linearly or non-linearly in interactions involving similar or partly similar quantities and not what, why, when, where, or with whom about the objects. These are subject matters of physics. Transgressing the strictly defined boundaries create pseudo-mathematical structures with undecidable propositions. After creating a problem, we search for ways to solve the problem and are lost in the enigma. We collect too much information and reject most without proper analysis (like at LHC). Some ‘theories’ provide conceptual convenience and attractive simplicity for pattern analysis, but at the cost of ignoring equally-plausible alternative interpretations of observed phenomena that could possibly have explained the universe better. For every quantum system and phenomenon, there exists a macro equivalent. But to see these, we have to get rid of the incremental approach of building on ‘established theories’. Instead of sticking to these ‘accepted theories’ superstitiously, if we re-envision classical and quantum observations as macroscopic overlap of quantum effects, we may solve most problems. After the observation of blue-shift and galactic merger, should we stick to dark energy? After failure to detect extra dimensions for over a century, should we stick to it? Let us be
Author BioIndependent researcher interested in fundamental principles of Nature. Believes in explaining everything from fundamental principles.
Download Essay PDF File
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 08:07 GMT
Dear basudeba mishra,
You begin very nicely, with: "The validity of a mathematical statement is judged by its logical consistency. The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality." And you observe that Wigner "admits not only the incompleteness of mathematics but also its manipulation according to the
aesthetic sense of the operator."
You then proceed to some statements that are not obvious to me. For example you state "
No computer algorithm is possible using complex numbers." That is not immediately evident to me. Then you say that no mathematics is possible without infinity. That seems an over-statement to me, as I do not really understand infinity mathematically (other than as 'unbounded') nor believe it is relevant to physics. I do however agree that 'mathematics is not the sole language of nature," and I like your examples. I also enjoyed your section on mathematical physics.
In your section on 'missing the woods for the trees' you tackle a number of specific examples which lead you to conclude that there is a need to ponder these issues and rewrite physics. Without commenting on the individual examples, I concur with you that physics is in need of reformulation. In many cases the mathematical trees obscure the physical woods, and in some places mathematical trees appear where there are no physical woods.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 02:13 GMT
Respected Sir,
Thank you for your comments. We will try to clarify your observations.
What is aesthetic sense? It is subjective to the individual and there is no standard candle. Thus, it cannot be logically consistent – hence not mathematics. By extension, its manipulation cannot be mathematics. This cannot be used to show the incompleteness of mathematics.
Can computer programs be written using complex numbers? The binary system uses yes/no command for something physical. A program can execute something only when it has physical existence. Can non-physical representations be codified in a computer program? If so, can we verify the authenticity of such operations? If yes, how?
We said no mathematics is possible with (not without) infinity, as all operations involving it will have undefined dimensions – thus indistinguishable from each other. The “unbounded-ness”, as you put it, makes them indistinguishable. For any value of x, ∞ ± x = ∞. Since this is not logically consistent, it is not mathematics. Infinity is the reason for renormalization, which is an important factor in mathematical physics. All we want to say is that it is renormalization is not valid mathematically. It points to some missing parameters or a novel phenomenon not considered earlier.
Sir, if you concur that physics needs to be rewritten, at least you can contribute by rejecting the superstitious belief on “established theories”.
With regards,
basudeba
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 22:53 GMT
Basudeba,
An interesting read with many good quotations. I'll try to condense your ideas into a simple statement of logic.
If Physics, then Math.
The contrapositive to that is
If not Math, then not Physics.
The Venn Diagram for this would have Physics completely contained within Math.
The problem is that there is a lot of Math that is outside of Physics. That can definitely cause mischief. But consider this ... Physics can grow and frequently Mathematics can point towards new areas for Physics to study. And Physics can provide a tangible meaning to many of the abstractions that occur in Mathematics.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 02:25 GMT
Dear Sir,
We request you to kindly read our paper. We have shown that mathematics is not the sole language of Nature, but only the quantitative aspect of it. Thus, your opinion: “If not math, then not physics” is opposed to our views. Further, we have not given lots of quotes, but examined some and refuted many. Your comments on the Venn diagram and your reference to “new areas”,...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
We request you to kindly read our paper. We have shown that mathematics is not the sole language of Nature, but only the quantitative aspect of it. Thus, your opinion: “If not math, then not physics” is opposed to our views. Further, we have not given lots of quotes, but examined some and refuted many. Your comments on the Venn diagram and your reference to “new areas”, which you possibly refer to quarternions, appear to be misplaced as explained below.
The Venn diagram does not represent “everything” in the universe that are inter-related, but only the things “we are dealing with at here-now”. Thus, it explains only certain aspects over the exclusion of others. It can show some overlap in set membership by overlapping the circles - the “intersection” of the two sets, though it can also be used for unions, complements, and subsets. Venn diagrams can also demonstrate “disjoint” sets that have no overlaps: their intersection is empty. It may explain certain symmetries, such as rotational symmetry, polar symmetry, etc. A necessary condition for the existence of a symmetric n-Venn diagram is that n be a prime number restricting options. When drawing Venn diagrams, having four or more circles becomes astonishingly complicated. Thus, it is not a very good tool for physics.
In mathematics, the quaternion is a number system that extends the complex numbers. It is a form of algebra where each object contains 4 scalar variables (Euler Parameters), one real dimension and 3 imaginary dimensions (a superset of complex numbers with two additional imaginary values, the explanations of which are questionable), though the term dimension is not appropriate for their description. Hamilton tried to find a three dimensional number systems, but failed. Then he manipulated 4 dimensions. The objects can be added and multiplied as a single unit in a similar way to the usual algebra of numbers. However, unlike the algebra of scalar numbers, quaternion multiplication is not commutative. This is against fundamental principles of mathematics. We have discussed all these aspects in our essay to show their inherent fallacies.
Some think of quaternions as an element consisting of a scalar number together with a 3 dimensional vector, we have to combine the 3 imaginary values into a vector. Others see it as the product of two independent complex plains or as a division of vectors. While using quaternions to represent rotations in 3 dimensions, the quaternions are restricted to unit length and only the multiplication operator is used. There are other notations and ways to think about quaternions also, all of which are questionable. These cannot explain physics, because they do not correspond to reality: which must exist, capable of being expressed in a language and capable of being known.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 05:44 GMT
???
I read your essay twice before posting a comment. Now I've read it three times. I get the same meaning as before ... specifically that there are things predicted by Math that have nothing to do with Physics. Is this the essence of your essay? The answer should be either yes or no.
I stopped counting quotations at (10). For a paper with 10 pages or less, I'd say that's a lot, although you do primarily use one author. Whether or not you refute a quotation has nothing to do with my statement.
Regarding logic and Venn diagrams, what I describe is consistent with math making predictions with no physical meaning. If I have missed your meaning after three readings then I'm probably not going to get it.
If a statement is logically true then its contrapositive must be true. If A then B is equivalent to if not B then not A.
Regarding quaternions ....
Good Luck and Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 14:40 GMT
Dear Sir,
Regarding “If a statement is logically true then its contra-positive must be true. If A then B is equivalent to if not B then not A”, it is not always true. The contra positive of “If cow, then an animal” – “If not cow, then not an animal” is obviously not true. What we said can be summarized in two statements:
1. All of mathematic is quantitative description of Nature.
2. All so-called “mathematics” that are not logically consistent, are not mathematics. Unfortunately, most of mathematical physics belong to this category.
We were responding to your description as “good quotations”, which includes even those which we have refuted. At least we cannot say those are good quotations.
Regards,
basudeba
Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 14:56 GMT
Basudeba,
You have not correctly stated the contrapositive. The contrapositive negates both of the arguments and swaps their positions. The contrapositive of your statement is "If not animal, then not cow". This is obviously true.
It sounds like you are attempting to say that some concepts that are considered to be mathematics are not really mathematics. I can sympathize with that statement but I cannot agree with it. I'll let the mathematicians decide what is mathematics and then decide whether or not it describes physics. Given that, my statement that "all physics is mathematics" but "all mathematics is not physics" seems to be completely true. Your quotes from Wigner seem to support this.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 22:25 GMT
Dear basudeba,
I have much positive sympathy for much in your essay. However, before engaging too heavily, I came here to check this brief approximation to my position:
"All physics is mathematics but not all mathematics is physics."
That puts me in a supporting role to Gary and to something like this:
"Let mathematicians decide what is mathematics: experiments and commonsense will decide if it's physics."
So I too would welcome your clarifications on this specific issue.
PS: Do not be concerned re your votes. You know enough maths to see how easily they may be manipulated -- and hence why they are so often irrelevant here.
With best regards;
Gordon Watson: Essay Forum.
Essay Only.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Feb. 4, 2015 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Basudeba Mishra
I read your essay with interest. This essay-contest is like a conference. Major conclusions emerging from the discussions, e.g. current physics needs revision, should be published in leading news-papers.
In my essay, titled: "On the connection between Physics and Mathematics" two anomalies in the general relativity theory are indicated; (i) If the space between the galaxies is expanding; but the space within the galaxy is not expanding, because galaxy is a gravitationally-bound structure, then the space at the boundary of the galaxy would break, or get torn-out!
(ii) My second question is: According to GR, the space around the Sun has got curved, so planets, like the earth, are in inertial-motion along the geodesic curved path. My question is: Inertial-motion of objects can be at any speed; can the planets move at any speed they like? Can they take a coffee-break, and then proceed further, like we do while traveling along hilly roads?
I am eager to know your comments.
Yours sincerely,
Hasmukh K. Tank
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 6, 2015 @ 02:54 GMT
Dear Sir,
You have raised some very interesting and important points.
Both your questions are valid. You might have noticed we have questioned the concept, the description and the mathematics of GR. One fact that may interest you is, the planetary orbits are not elliptical as it never closes, but spirals due to the movement of the star. The orbits are circular around the star...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
You have raised some very interesting and important points.
Both your questions are valid. You might have noticed we have questioned the concept, the description and the mathematics of GR. One fact that may interest you is, the planetary orbits are not elliptical as it never closes, but spirals due to the movement of the star. The orbits are circular around the star (geodesic curved path, as you say), but appear elliptical due to the same reason. Over the years (over 26000 years for the Sun), the spiral closes in a chain of another bigger spiral at the galactic scale (dolana gati - as the star completes its rotation around galaxy). This leads to another bigger spiral (manwantara). The stars and galaxies are intermediate between quarks and the universe – the two extremities. These extremities move in closed loops – the quarks forming protons and neutrons and the universe forming kalpa. We have given reference to observations that prove blue-shift and galactic collision. Thus, the expanding universe theory is myth. Actually, the universe is revolving around its own axis like stars. Just like we observe apparent atichaara and vakra motion of planets, where they appear to speed away or close in, we are observing galactic red-shift and blue-shift.
Space has no physical existence, but is a mental construct (buddhi nirmaana), as it is 1) the interval between objects (sarva samyogina) and 2) the primary base that connects everything (aadhaara shakti prathamaa). What Einstein called space is really alternative symbolism for the interval between objects and the geometry of space is actually the geometry of objects that determine the boundary of ‘space’. One major overlooked fact is that while the other fundamental forces; i.e. strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions are intra-body phenomenon dependent on the ratio of mass/energy of the particle, gravitation is an inter-body phenomenon independent of any intra-body factor, as here the body behaves like a point particle. Further, while the other forces behave as monogamous pairs, gravitation is polygamous. Thus, graviton will never be discovered and standard model (with its extension quantum gravity) must fail. Just like tidal forces push away other bodies, the bow shock effect of planets and stars in the universal background structure creates eddy current type areas in their path. You must be aware of the interplanetary super-highways (IPS or bhuta-shakti pravaaha maarga called patha). These are of 5 types: rekha, mandala, kashya, shakti and Kendra. Their interaction (pravaaha dwaya samsargaat) creates 5 types of eddies (aavarta): shakti, vaata, kirana, shaitya, gharshana respectively. These determine the movement of bodies in space that otherwise move at a fixed velocity due to inertia. These motions are perpetual. Hence no coffee breaks till the condition of maximum entropy (pralaya), after which the process reverses and repeats again and again.
You must note our definition of space, time and coordinates in the essay. 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.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Feb. 6, 2015 @ 14:14 GMT
Shri Basudeba Mishra Sir,
Many thanks for your kind reply to my questions. I read your essay and found that i should ask these questions to you.
I am eager to read the book mentioned by you.
With best regards,
Hasmukh K. Tank
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 8, 2015 @ 17:44 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
I just finished reading your essay. It is certainly a new way of looking at physics and I agree with one of your opening statements, "The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality". This will remove much mystery from our physics.
However, you make some statements that are untrue. Some that cannot be decided whether true or false, by using logic. When you say: "Zero is the absence of something at here-now that is known to exist elsewhere (otherwise we will not perceive its absence at all)", what of a Dragon (snake that breathes out fire)?It is absent at here-now, BUT DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE ELSE. Or do I misunderstand your meaning?
Lastly, thanks for commenting on my essay. You said there was a distance between points, which I depict as ._._._. Where can you cut? You cannot cut the point ., and you cannot cut that distance _. And if you claim you can cut that distance, its extremity will be a point ., thus contradicting the statement that no point exists in the distance between the initial points.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 01:06 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thanks for you comments.
Your example proves our statement. As you put it, the mythological dragon is a snake that breathes out fire. We know about snakes, fires, breathing and know the mechanism of breathing. But the special relation between them is non-existent, which makes the creature non-existent physically (at here-now). We see many such things in dream, where the constraints of the physical world are not present. But they are physically not possible. That relationship is zero, though the components are true and physical.
Regarding the points about your essay, by definition, a point has existence but no dimension. You can only cut fixed dimensional objects (you cannot ‘cut’ air or water). Since a point has no dimension, you cannot cut a point. Similarly, the distance is space (if it does not belong to fixed dimensional objects) that exists and has dimension through alternative symbolism (interval between objects). You cannot cut space, but change the interval by moving objects. Here you change the interval between the two pieces of bread through your ‘cutting’. This is not the same as cutting the point.
Regards,
basudeba
Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 08:51 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
Between two fixed dimensional objects, you say and agree that there is space. You say you cannot cut space but can you not swing a knife between those two dimensional objects and it passes through?
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 17:29 GMT
Dear Sir,
Swinging a knife is motion and all motion takes place only in space. Cutting means dividing something into parts. If you measure the interval, you can divide an equal interval depicted by an object, but you cannot divide space, as it has no structure of its own.
Regards,
basudeba
Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 13, 2015 @ 13:27 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
I wish to continue our conversation here.
You say, that one cannot divide space. This statement is contrary to the common views in physics today. The argument in physics today is whether space can be infinitely divisible or whether there is a limit to its divisibility. I think you need to review this position.
Then, on Big bang which you talked about on Lee Smolin's thread. The current model is that space was created ex-nihilo at the Big bang and not the explosion of matter into some pre-existing space. And in a Big crunch everything again collapses to nothing. No more space. If you agree with the model, then points and space can perish.
Maybe, I don't understand your interpretation of 'line', 'points' and 'space' but you can check Euclid's reference in my essay. Or what is your own understanding of what a 'line' is? Does a line, i.e. distance consist of points? Does point physically exist? Can that line be breached by an object?
From your statement that "you cannot ‘cut’...water", although I am not very religious, what happened at the Red Sea when Jews were leaving Egypt, or did you not hear the story of the 'parting' of the Red Sea?
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 13, 2015 @ 17:13 GMT
Dear Sir,
We are questioning the modern belief by defining space. Hence we should be proved wrong to change our position. Whatever is created needs a mechanism. If space is created, what is the mechanism?
Line has no independent existence. It can denote distance between objects; or imaginary path traversed by an object or body; or a marking on some base (geometry). We call it line through alternative symbolism. Euclid used the last definition. All three definitions are related to objects or fields. Hence we can cut only the objects or fields, but not something that does not exist. The same logic applies to point.
Regarding ‘parting’ of the Red Sea, we cannot comment because we do not know the facts and according to our knowledge, there is no scientific evidence for or against it.
Regards,
basudeba
hide replies
Christophe Tournayre wrote on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 19:18 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
I enjoyed in your essay that you are trying to question things, trying to look at things from a different angle. On the minus side, I could not understand your examples because of my poor knowledge of physics and mathematics.
In my view, if you question physics and mathematics, go for the simple stuff, show that today mathematics are not adequate to describe daily life events, higlight what more can be perceived.
Because even if the event of relativity being wrong as you said, it changes nothing of the effectiveness of today science. People will be happy to rewrite physics if it brings more tools and ressources to solve their daily life problems.
Regards
Christophe
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 10, 2015 @ 02:40 GMT
Dear Sir,
We question the modern system of scientific research, which is more tilted towards career advancement than quest for knowledge. What you call “tools and resources to solve their daily life problems”, are related to technology and not science. While science without technology is lame, technology without science is blind. With over-emphasis on the effectiveness of technology, its ‘blindness’ is increasing, which is manifest in various social and environmental problems. A very large number of people enjoy a cozy life in pursuing and teaching nothingness or self-destruction. We may enjoy temporarily, but ultimately everyone is going to suffer.
Regards,
basudeba
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 16:54 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
Very interesting, profound essay and interesting ideas. I agree with you: "The physics community blindly accepts rigid, linear ideas about the nature of space, time, dimension, etc. These theories provide conceptual convenience and attractive simplicity for pattern analysis, but at the cost of ignoring equally-plausible alternative interpretations of observed phenomena that could possibly have explained the universe better. Modern theories do not give a precise definition of the technical terms used, but give an operational definition that can be manipulated according to convenience."
In basic science "crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin), the "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T. Romanovskaya). To overcome the crisis requires a deeper ontology. Fundamental knowledge - Mathematics and Physics require a deep ontological justification. In fundamental Physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification along with the empirical standard.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 17:31 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thanks for your comments. We expected more comments on our examples.
While science without technology is lame, technology without science is blind. With over-emphasis on the effectiveness of technology, its ‘blindness’ is increasing, which is manifest in various social and environmental problems. A very large number of people enjoy a cozy life in pursuing and teaching nothingness or self-destruction. We may enjoy temporarily, but ultimately everyone is going to suffer. There is an urgent need to review and rewrite physics.
Regards,
basudeba
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 25, 2015 @ 21:02 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
I agree with you completely. I wish you success in the Contest and in the promotion of your ideas! I invite you to read and evaluate my
essay .
Kind regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 06:29 GMT
Dear Sir,
Sorry for the delay. We will read your essay soon and rate it suitably.
Regards,
basudeba
Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 07:08 GMT
With your work, its more enclosed with defined and closed subtleties more so that your work is subjected to effective read.
Good Luck!
Regards,
Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan
report post as inappropriate
John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 17, 2015 @ 20:40 GMT
Leibniz introduced a relational concept into the Aristotelian worldview. What we call space is a projection of relationships between material bodies into the perceived world. What we call time is the projection of ordered change into the perceived world. Of the three arguments, this latter was the only one to which Clarke had a good objection - essentially that accelerated motion, unlike uniform motion, can be perceived without reference to external bodies and is, therefore, necessarily perceived with respect to the absolute space of Newton. Clark used the bucket experiment. How do you respond or describe the Newton’s Bucket experiment to explain accelerated motion?
Does your view of the properties of space and time follow the Leibnizian view. Especially where he concludes space and time as boundless? Otherwise I don’t see a difference except Leibniz accepts the boundless (infinite).
You suggest that when an equation yields infinity, there is some unmodeled physics functioning. Very good. I said that it should indicate the model to be wrong. Well, perhaps both may be our approach.
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 18, 2015 @ 09:27 GMT
Dear Sir,
Your definition of space and time and Newton’s bucket experiment do not contradict our definition. Newton did not “define time, space, place, and motion, as they are well known to all. Absolute space by its own nature, without reference to anything external, always remains similar and unmovable”. The second sentence is misleading. For this reason, Newton wrote: “It is...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
Your definition of space and time and Newton’s bucket experiment do not contradict our definition. Newton did not “define time, space, place, and motion, as they are well known to all. Absolute space by its own nature, without reference to anything external, always remains similar and unmovable”. The second sentence is misleading. For this reason, Newton wrote: “It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover and effectually to distinguish the true motions of particular bodies from the apparent, because the parts of that immovable space in which these motions are performed do by no means come under the observations of our senses”. Leibnitz, on the other hand argued that space only provided a means of encoding the relation of one object to another, which is close to our definition, though we hold that the universe is spinning on its axis and the so-called dark energy is the background structure. Berkley, who explained that the water is rotating with respect to fixed stars, and Neumann, who suggested: “wouldn’t it be shaped like an ellipsoid if it rotated and a sphere if at rest”, are in a sense (not fully) close to this view. Newton’s other thought experiment in space is also not correct for the same reason. Mach’s counter is not verifiable; hence cannot be proved.
Applying our definition of space and dimension solves the problem. The water is relatively at rest in the bucket with one of its surfaces exposed to space. When the bucket starts spinning, air at that space starts spinning due to contact with the bucket. The air above is relatively at rest except around the rope, which spins vertically. This air spins along the rope except just below it (the rope is tied to the handle above or joined there if tied to the sides). This creates a pressure zone with a ‘hole’ at the center. When the water spins due to contact with the bucket and the air above, it swells slightly and the water around this ‘hole’ moves towards it generating a back reaction, which pushes this water back (a modified version of bow shock effect). This creates the concave structure, which grows with spin. The rest are easy.
We have discussed relativity in our essay to prove that it is a wrong description of reality. Thirring’s view that “a massive rotating body drags space-time round with it” – the frame-dragging effect is concurrent with our views, though for different reasons.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 06:52 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
Experts should know what you wrote: "light is a transverse wave, which is background invariant."
Could you please relate this to the essence of the essay by Phipps?
My best regards too,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Sir,
Basically Dr. Phipps is saying the same thing in a different style. Time dilation, like length contraction, flow from SR. Relativity is an operational concept, but not an existential concept. The equations apply to data and not to particles. When we approach a mountain from a distance, its volume appears to increase. What this means is that the visual perception of volume (scaling...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
Basically Dr. Phipps is saying the same thing in a different style. Time dilation, like length contraction, flow from SR. Relativity is an operational concept, but not an existential concept. The equations apply to data and not to particles. When we approach a mountain from a distance, its volume appears to increase. What this means is that the visual perception of volume (scaling up of the angle of incoming radiation) changes at a particular rate. But locally, there is no such impact on the mountain. It exists as it was. The same principle applies to the perception of objects with high velocities. The changing volume is perceived at different times depending upon our relative velocity. If we move fast, it appears earlier. If we move slowly, it appears later. Our differential perception is related to changing angles of radiation and not the changing states of the object. It does not apply to locality. Thus, length contraction is only apparent. Time dilation (including that noticed in GPS) is caused due to refraction caused by changing density of local medium (what you call tired light). Time dilation, like light, is density variant and not uniform everywhere. This causes the asymmetry. We also hold similar views on proper time, but add that being a privileged frame of reference, it invalidates relativity.
Regarding light as a background invariant transverse wave, Dr. Phipps also says “Currents were said by Maxwell to flow only in closed circuits. So, it is evident that ordinary experiments with closed circuits are not going to reveal the presence of this term”. We can generate a transverse wave only when one end of the string is fixed and an impulse is introduced at the other end making a closed circuit. This is the extra force term pointed out by Dr. Phipps.
Schrödinger equation in so-called one dimension Hψ = Eψ (it is a second order equation as it contains a term x^2, which is in two dimensions and mathematically implies area) is converted to three dimensional by addition of two similar factors for y and z axis. Three dimensions mathematically imply volume. Addition of three (two dimensional) areas does not generate (three dimensional) volume and x^2+y^2+z^2 ≠ (x.y.z). Hence, the Schrödinger equation could not be solved for other than hydrogen atoms. For many electron atoms, the so called solutions simply consider them as many one-electron atoms, ignoring the electrostatic energy of repulsion between the electrons and treating them as point charges frozen to some instantaneous position. Even then, the problem remains to be solved.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 09:32 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
I agree with you. ”Dimension is the perception of differentiation between internal structural space and external relational space of an object.” And
“There are no extra large or compact or n’th dimension.“
Moreover, the Universe it is easier to understood without dimension at all.
The results of this approach can be seen in my work.
Regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Author basudeba mishra replied on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 10:45 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thanks. But why stop here. Please campaign for rewriting physics.
We will soon visit your essay.
Regards,
basudeba
Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 18:40 GMT
Dear Mr. Mishra,
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
Author basudeba mishra replied on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 00:44 GMT
Dear Sir,
There is a tendency in these columns to read essays only of friends and rate them high and ignore all other essays and rate them low. Hence thanks for reading our essay. Also only people who have full confidence in their theories tell us to read their essays, because we do not go by name, but content. Thus, before reading, you have made us somewhat biased in favor of your essay....
view entire post
Dear Sir,
There is a tendency in these columns to read essays only of friends and rate them high and ignore all other essays and rate them low. Hence thanks for reading our essay. Also only people who have full confidence in their theories tell us to read their essays, because we do not go by name, but content. Thus, before reading, you have made us somewhat biased in favor of your essay. We will certainly read your essay and comment soon. We were writing a paper for the Gravity Research Foundation and another for another International Conference to be held this month. Hence after reading about 50 essays, we stopped reading other essays here. We will soon start reading and rating other essays.
Newton was not exactly wrong about gravity. But he did not realize the total implication of application of his second law to the gravitational equation: g = F/m. Gravity is not the only force acting here, as you see two forces in both sides of the equation. It only accelerates - changes velocity induced by an existing force when it surpasses that force (changed the velocity of the apple from relative zero to motion and again relative zero when it exceeded the force by which the apple was held to its stem). The two zero relative velocities imply stabilization after destabilization. Thus, gravity stabilizes – not attracts. It is related to momentum and not mass. It also implies that at the universal level, there is only one primordial force, which moves all. Just like the same force creates different momentum when acting on different masses, we see different emergent forces.
Transverse waves are background invariant by definition. Since light is a transverse wave, it is background invariant. Einstein’s ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell’s Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (ether) based. Thus, nonobservance of ether drag (as in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove background structure. Einsteinian space-time curvature calculations were based on vacuum, i.e. on a medium without any gravitational properties (since it has no mass). In a material medium (which space certainly is), it will have a profound effect on space-time geometry, making the gravitational constant different for different local densities (explained later). If Sun and Earth attract each other towards their present positions S and E respectively, the two forces balance in each other’s orbit. If both bodies move with uniform relative velocity, the forces, being oppositely directed, would cancel each other. But since both are moving with different velocities, and forces exerted by each on the other takes some time to travel from one to the other, there will be a net force.
While gravity interacts polygamously with every other body, other interactions originate as intra-body monogamous entanglements. Strength of their relationship varies according to their energy level, making four couples of proximity-distance functions that vary according to the mass and energies involved and the local field density. The proximity-proximity variable is strong interaction. The proximity-distance variable (in-phase bonding) is weak interaction. The distance-proximity variable is electromagnetic interaction. The distance-distance variable (out-of-phase bonding) is beta decay. The inter-body variables are gravitational interaction. All displacements are associated with generation of heat energy. But all interactions are not associated with high energy except strong, weak, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration. Like magnetism, gravitational interaction is associated with low energy - hence belongs to a different class.
Regards,
basudeba
mbasudeba@gmail.com
view post as summary
Author basudeba mishra replied on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 01:18 GMT
Dear Sir,
We find that we had commented on your essay on Feb. 7, 2015.
We have replied to your further comment today.
Regards,
basudeba
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.