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

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

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