show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Sir,

Your definition of division is too restricted. You can universalize it by following the definition of number in our essay. There is a limit (call it the Planck scale if you want) up to which a number can be divided. Physically, it is the quarks. Zero is not nothingness (no magnitude), but something that does not exist at here-now. One is without similars, where the dimensions are...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

Your definition of division is too restricted. You can universalize it by following the definition of number in our essay. There is a limit (call it the Planck scale if you want) up to which a number can be divided. Physically, it is the quarks. Zero is not nothingness (no magnitude), but something that does not exist at here-now. One is without similars, where the dimensions are fully perceptible. Infinity is not a very big number, but something without similars, where the dimensions are not fully perceptible. Thus, no mathematics is possible using infinity, as everything becomes indistinguishable. Similarly, we have shown that mathematics except multiplication by zero leaves the number unchanged. Regarding e = mc^2, please refer to our essay.

Mathematics is the quantitative description of Nature, whereas physics is its physical aspects. Hence both are related and cannot be separated. Multiplication and division are non-linear accumulation and reduction of partly similar related objects. A knife does not divide bread; it is only an instrument for the operation of division, which is taking away a part from the whole. This leads to discontinuity of the whole bread. You also admit it when you say: “The parts become discrete entities and no longer continuous, with “something” separating them”. The process of division by a knife requires energy to be applied to it to displace a piece from the whole. Since energy is applied by the hand, an equal force acts on it, though it may not be evident always.

Division ad infinitum is only imagined and not possible even mathematically. Since “one” is without similars, it becomes “many” in division. In a fraction, the new one becomes the unit, out of which the denominator indicates the total number of the new ‘one’ out of which the numerator indicates the number of ‘one’s taken out. Thus, it can continue only till the minimum describable quantity (fundamental scale of length, ~ 10^-35m, as you put it). For example, you cannot divide a quark further. Mathematics also stops here.

When you say “the extremities of a line are points”, you admit its existence as with or without similars (one or many points separated by space). Introduction of space is cutting a line. Points are discrete. If line is the locus of a point, it implies continuity and not discreteness. Thus, the principle applied for a fraction mentioned above applies.

When you talk about dividing line and divided line of an object, you imply interaction of two axes. They are parts of dimension of the same object (occupying three dimensional space or two dimensions of the graph) representing two different dimensions. Thus, they are not separate objects. If you talk about intersecting lines, then also they would divide the space on the graph or a paper. Hence they can co-exist. The knife creates space for itself by dividing the bread, which no longer remains one object. If you cut a rock with the blade, it will not give space and your operation becomes futile.

Distinguishing one part from the other is fundamental to the number theory; hence mathematics and quantitative physics. The simplest answer to Zeno’s paradox is that velocity is related to the mass of the body that is moving, the energy used (force applied) to move it and the total density of and the totality of the energy operating on the field. These are all mobile units against the back drop of the field that is static with reference to these. Middle of the distance is related to the frame of reference, which is relatively static with reference to the other mobile aspects. Thus, it is like comparing position and momentum. They do not commute. Hence there is no paradox, which is borne out of experience. While the middle of the distance is gradually reduced, the velocity is not reduced by the same proportion. Hence the runner will reach the end point.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

Dear Sir,

This is in addition to our earlier post. We will reply to the points raised by you separately.

When you look at the various colors in the strip, you could distinguish the different wave lengths of radiation emanating from out of it. When you reach “fundamental extended lengths which being indivisible” is not distinguishable from others, you are looking at the radiation...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

This is in addition to our earlier post. We will reply to the points raised by you separately.

When you look at the various colors in the strip, you could distinguish the different wave lengths of radiation emanating from out of it. When you reach “fundamental extended lengths which being indivisible” is not distinguishable from others, you are looking at the radiation of minimum wave-length. But what about the mass that emits radiation? It is like looking at various macro objects. When you reach quark level, all look same. Only at this scale, mass and energy become equal. But then everything requires a ground or base or medium to exist or propagate. That is the so-called dark energy (which you call ‘syrupy’ space). Just like the smooth and persistent background structure does not interact with the object, the so-called dark energy also does not interact with mass/energy. It did not show in the M&M experiment because light is a transverse wave, which is background invariant.

What you call ‘dividing line’ cannot be of zero breadth, because, physically, it must be distance between two points in three dimensional space. Mathematically, it has to be drawn on a paper, which also is not one dimensional. The problem arises because you are ignoring the background. This mistake appears as the problem of dark energy. Just like emphasizing red-shift to infer expanding universe (which is now questioned after discovery of galactic blue-shift and merger) has led to the problem of dark matter. The galaxy rotation curve can be easily explained with Keplerian mathematics if we accept that the universe is static but rotating on its axis. Starting with ‘big-bounce’ on the background structure, it can explain ‘inflation’ differently. This harmonizes with your view that “space appears not to be an eternally existing entity” and “time as the separator of minimum lengths”, though it has to be explained properly.

Quantum jumping is not that mysterious. Science knows all about electrons except what it is? The same is true for photon also. This creates all confusion. Photon is the point of intersection of the electric and magnetic planes with their direction of motion. When a ship moves in sea, it expels water in front sideways, which reunites at the back. A similar phenomenon is seen in magnetospheric reconnection. Something similar happens with quantum jumps. It becomes visible only at shifting intersections with the right orientation.

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 a set of six components: 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. This answers your question “what if what is can perish?” Evolution is cyclic.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

Dear Akinbo Ojo,

Wow. You obviously put a lot of thought into this essay and I congratulate you on your effort. I found it very challenging to read partly because I couldn’t see the “point” (no disrespect, but pun intended). I realize that it is typical of philosophers to pick a detail such as you did and obsess over it until they have pulled every possible string to its limit, but as...

view entire post

Dear Akinbo Ojo,

Wow. You obviously put a lot of thought into this essay and I congratulate you on your effort. I found it very challenging to read partly because I couldn’t see the “point” (no disrespect, but pun intended). I realize that it is typical of philosophers to pick a detail such as you did and obsess over it until they have pulled every possible string to its limit, but as an applied physicist, it is hard for me to follow without a clear end in sight.

However, in regards to your hypothesis about time, you said, “Of course, not everybody accepts the cosmological theory, so we are assuming its correctness.” Well, in fact, I disagree with the big-bang theory as well as interpretations of singularities as being black holes in spacetime. As I explained in my essay (Doctors of the Ring…) these are mis-perceptions of unified concepts (metaphorically represented by the “golden ring”). If you look at a circle from its side (or as a shadow on Plato’s cave) you will see a line. And if there is a particle moving continuously on the ring, the shadow would make it look like an oscillation from one end to the other and back. If you believe that perspective, you will be trapped (under the spell) and won’t rise above the plane of opposites to see their unity.

Because the whole cosmological theory is based upon the notion that space is 3D and time is 1D, which is a lop-sided expansion of s = ct, correct mathematics has led to a lop-sided interpretation. It’s a foregone conclusion.

I have been working on a model of space-time-motion (which I am about to submit for publication) that represents space and time as conformal projections of motion onto a two-dimensional S-T plane.

*Motion is what is real; it gives matter form. The word motion represents a complementary (unified) concept, i.e. “motion” is a single word used to express complementary antonyms (moving and not moving or at rest); yet the moving state can be expressed in terms of gradable parameters (displacement (s) and clock-time (t)),

*The gradable parameters, s and t numerate (i.e. quantize) and denominate (i.e. reference to standard time scale) the moving state to provide a gradable spectrum by the ratio, v=s/t;

*The speed of light in natural units is simply the state at which the ratio is 1:1

Although I don’t follow your logic, I think I agree with your statement that “time is the separator and conferor of discreteness on space”. My reason has more to do with the fact that time is the scale that denominates motion, thus giving it a unit magnitude of change. The “curse of Zeno” may be resolved simply by shifting the reference from zero to unity. Any unit of measurement is defined by the “unit”, i.e. one unit, not zero. “Zero” represents nothingness so any physically measurable model that includes zero length or displacement, is subject to Zeno’s paradox. The concept of time is also subject to the “curse”. A unit of time is “measured”, although it is not a physical observable, by the motion of a clock (or grains of sand etc). So setting t=0 for analysis of a moving particle means zero relative motion, which is the rest state, so the moving model does not apply.

I hope I made some sense, but it is very difficult to explain. If you are interested, you should read my first draft of the Space-time-motion diagram at http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0045. I have made some changes, mainly to cut down on the philosophy and background material, so check back in a few days to get the latest version.

Oh yes, as for Parmenides philosophy: clearly I disagree with his view that change is impossible, but I agree that existence is timeless because time is nothing more than a scale for eternal (timeless – no beginning and no end) change.

Best regards,

Ted

view post as summary

I’ve replied to your comments of my essay in my essay comment section. I comment on your essay in the interest of dialectic discourse.

Your essay raises many conceptual issues that should be addressed by current physics. A new physics model of the universe is needed. The new model should take decisions about the issues you raise.

I ask a different question of my physics. I think...

view entire post

I’ve replied to your comments of my essay in my essay comment section. I comment on your essay in the interest of dialectic discourse.

Your essay raises many conceptual issues that should be addressed by current physics. A new physics model of the universe is needed. The new model should take decisions about the issues you raise.

I ask a different question of my physics. I think the interest of physics is the prediction of observations and the usefulness of such knowledge to the survival of us (our gene, our progeny, etc.). If a set of definitions fail to result in the advancement of physics, they have little use in physics. However, humanity has experienced may times some set appearing to have no use at a given time only to have a use found later. So math study and documentation keeps them alive. I reject the Zeno and other such paradoxes as not useful. But keeping such speculation in mind may help the development of a new model. If you think Zeno should be considered, you suggest how.

The models in physics includes models of observations we predict quite well. Outside of these zones are hypothesis that need to be developed. Outside of this are speculations. Then there is metaphysics that usually has many poorly defined and inconsistent defined concepts. Then religion covers the areas not even within physical speculation. Dragons are beyond speculation, the lack of good definition become the problem. The beginning (Christian theology) or the eternal universe (Hindu theology) is religion. Abstraction about this in current knowledge is meaningless because we lack sufficient definition.

Multiplication is the successive addition of a number. The inverse of this operation is not division - the inverse of multiplication is successive subtraction. Division as currently defined has only a calculation convenience in which great care to avoid many physical pitfalls must be taken. Often this requisite care is not taken that results in non-physical results.

Your 2+3=5 query: The issue you raise has to do with the definition of the components of the equation. Let’s take the numbers to be counting of things and the normal, decimal numbering system. If you have other definitions, they should be explained. After this in physics, the things need to be carefully defined to fit the physics of the paper that is usually done in the paper. If the definitions are to fit observation and are self-consistent, then physics takes the result as certain. Later observation may indicate falsity of some part of the argument that would conclude rejection of the hypothesis. For example, Take 2 boards of similar cross section, one 2 feet long another 3 feet long. Is 2 feet of board plus (combine) 3 feet of board the same (equal) a board 5 feet long. Note the thing we are counting is a single board of the stated length. If the physical goal is to span a distance of 4 feet, the equality is false. If the physical goal is to measure or separate other things such as in a construction, the equality is true as either structure can fulfill the need. Both concepts are used in the carpentry craft. Be very careful with your definitions and the consistent use of your definitions.

My model of the universe suggested in my essay is that the universe components are continually being injected into our universe through sources (center of spiral galaxies) and ejected from our universe through sinks (center of elliptical galaxies). This model has been tested (1) by explaining several mysteries of both the Big Bang and cyclical models and (2) showing correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics

to the successful parts of current models. BTW my universe can be bounded and flat as I mention in my essay. The Newtonian view of gravity suggests the universe must be unbounded (infinite). The General Relativity view suggests the universe in bounded by being spherical. Unfortunately, the data indicates the universe is flat (or if it is spherical, the radius must be much greater than the Hubble regression allows).

I interpret Parmenides as suggesting the universe is more akin to Hindu tradition of an eternal universe with each incarnation being like a long line of ants - all the same and repeating. I reject division as a legitimate physics operation. Therefore, Zeno assumption does not reflect reality.

I address your ``cutting’’ and ``separator’’ in the comment in my essay. Non-zero breadth is my 2 dimensional hod. The hod separates the plenum (GR space) density divergence. The hods in the universe have already ``cut’’ the universe in their introduction at the Source. So all that remains is to move them around to achieve the ``cut’’ that is required.

A note about your mention of the energy mass equation: The equation and its use does not specify if the mass is being converted to energy or if the mass is a container (like a jug) of a give amount if inertial energy. The problem as I see it is the definition of ``mass’’ is very poor.

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Hi Akinbo,

I liked your essay but I am still not fully convinced that a discrete physical model cannot be possible… although some of your ideas really made me think!

I must admit, I was almost ready to give up trying to make sense of some of your points because I wasn’t really following exactly what you were getting at. But then I think I got a better understanding… Please...

view entire post

Hi Akinbo,

I liked your essay but I am still not fully convinced that a discrete physical model cannot be possible… although some of your ideas really made me think!

I must admit, I was almost ready to give up trying to make sense of some of your points because I wasn’t really following exactly what you were getting at. But then I think I got a better understanding… Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe your view is that in order for space/distance/point to exist in this universe, it must be constructed of something, or else it doesn’t really exist in this universe. I think too many people will find it hard to abandon the notion of a background space that exists independent of matter, just like they might picture the big bang in their head as a point that explodes in a background space, rather than a point that expands and creates space itself. So from your perspective, to talk about a point between two objects in the physical world, that point must exist “on top of something”, or else it really isn’t a point in our universe. Maybe stated another way, you theory supposes that you can’t have a true vacuum devoid of matter. I don’t think you said some of this stuff, but I have a feeling like this is what you were getting at… but maybe I’m completely off.

You said this with regard to dividing:

“Physics does not fair better, even in the models where there is finite divisibility of length. In those models, there is a limit to the number of extended points or fundamental lengths, but there is also no distance between those points, since that distance will also consist of points. Further, one cannot resort to cutting at the boundary since as fundamental objects, both the boundary and its object are one and cannot be separate parts. So like, the case for math, where to cut is a problem.”

But what about a discrete physics model where there is a network of nodes, like what Stephen Wolfram postulates? I think in his model, 3-D space and matter is emergent, so that may be a loophole in your theory that allows for a discrete physical model. Maybe in this kind of network model, network connections(1) and non-connections(0) could combined to lead to emergent properties, which I think is similar to the idea you were describing in your theory when you tried to account for distinct properties in a physical continuum. In this type of network, I believe the lines/edges just help to define a “distance” in metric space between the nodes/verticies, and don’t represent a 3-D distance at the most fundamental level… So maybe your ideas would gel with this type of network model since the lines in this model don’t really contain any points.

Maybe even imagining this kind of model pictorially is a little misleading. Maybe each node should be given a number and the structural relationship could be represented as sets of numbers, similar to how a graph is defined in graph theory. So rather than picturing a triangular network composed of three “points” and three “lines”, you could consider the following isomorphic numerical representation:

Vertex 1 connections: {2,3}

Vertex 2 connections: {1,3}

Vertex 3 connections: {1,2}

I have more thoughts on this, but I don’t want to get carried away and write more if I didn’t get some of your ideas right in the first place.

Please send a note to my essay forum when you respond so I get an email notification, and know when to check back on your page.

Thanks,

Jon

view post as summary

Akinbo,

A good well presented essay on an important topic where poor or limited understanding has always prevailed. I think this situation did need 'flagging up' to help remove creeping complacency. You well identify those present limits of descriptive powers and identify the flaws.

I second your postulate, but with the proviso we are not ruling out 'disappear' from the...

view entire post

Akinbo,

A good well presented essay on an important topic where poor or limited understanding has always prevailed. I think this situation did need 'flagging up' to help remove creeping complacency. You well identify those present limits of descriptive powers and identify the flaws.

I second your postulate, but with the proviso we are not ruling out 'disappear' from the Electromagnetic (EM) 'scale' regime as possibly still allowing some higher order quantum 'foam' or dark energy state smaller and not harmonically interactive with EM. i.e. if an EM particle is a cyclone, then the air molecules exist even when it disappears. or if an air molecule disappears; it's constituate fundamental particles remain. So I suggest we should consider 'dimensional orders', so 'disappear' to us may not necessarily be synonomous with 'cease to exist in any way.' How do you feel about that?

My last question relates to the helix, much analysed in my previous essays. Do you agree we can 'identify' each cycle without 'cutting' anything? If two helical entities approach us directly we see two distinct orbits, yet if we observe from the side we see a continuous sine/cos wave form. The orbiting 'charge' of each may itself be a 'fractal' of that same dynamic, which is consistent with what optical science and neutron interferometry are finding (see my citations last year) with spin-orbit coupling and 'hyperfine' spin states.

On the surface of the ocean are tiny wavelets on waves on ever bigger waves, through swells and tides. Do you agree the human experience may only see a small 'window' of that sequence, in the same way our eyes can only detect a tiny slice of the EM spectrum? Does that modify your analysis?

Anyway, a great essay within reasonable non speculative limits. Good rating well earned.

I hope and am sure you'll also like mine, revealing a few tricks and their implications, also important for improved understanding. I have a short video expanding on the implications (perhaps for after all the essay reading!)

Well done and very best of luck in the contest.

Peter

view post as summary

About the finite divisibility of physical objects: rather than the need of a distance interval to insert in a division, mentioning atoms as roughly indivisible parts of material objects, would be more directly clear, wouldn't it ?

"there is a limit to the number of extended points or fundamental lengths, but there is also no distance between those points, since that distance will also...

view entire post

About the finite divisibility of physical objects: rather than the need of a distance interval to insert in a division, mentioning atoms as roughly indivisible parts of material objects, would be more directly clear, wouldn't it ?

"there is a limit to the number of extended points or fundamental lengths, but there is also no distance between those points, since that distance will also consist of points."

There is a limit to the number of atoms, but there is a distance between atoms. That distance does not consist of atoms ; it is subject to a quantum uncertainty, that is smaller than this inter-atom distance (in the case of a covalent bound), but still quite bigger than the Planck length, which is thus irrelevant here.

"where to cut is a problem" : I don't think butchers see it so.

"Then, as you turn the screw further, beyond the sub-atomic scale of quarks towards the fundamental scale of length, ~ 10^-35 m, the unexpected happens. At the scale of the fundamental building block, the blue extension is ultimately made of a featureless length, same with the yellow, green and red strips. At that fundamental color-blind scale, how is the boundary to be demarcated, say between one blue strip and another blue strip or between a blue and a yellow strip?(...) reality is fundamentally One thing"

You are telling a lot about what happens at the Planck scale. How can you know that much on what it actually looks like at that scale ? Colored objects are made of atoms; the information of color is carried by these atoms. Thus the division defined by colors cannot go smaller than the inter-atom distance. There is no point to develop qualifications about what happens when trying to physically cut at smaller scales, since we have no way to even try physically cutting things there. All we can do is take our best mathematical theories of physics, which were verified by experiments, and discuss what they mathematically define at smaller scales (quantum fields, structure of nucleus...). But we still don't have verified mathematical theories of what happens at the Planck scale, so I see no sense of even developing a discussion about it, as you did, as if we did have things to say there. Personally, I think it is more interesting to discuss the things we know (quantum physics), which already have interesting consequences on the issue (position uncertainties of atoms at the atomic scales), than writing an essay about how things look like at the Planck scale (which we actually don't know) in ways that ignore the known quantum uncertainties at the atomic scale.

"possibly at a future time, [space] would collapse, reduce to the minimum length and disappear (Big crunch)" : this was considered among scientific hypotheses before the discovery of the acceleration of expansion by dark energy, but since this discovery, the Big crunch is not considered scientifically plausible anymore.

"Quantum mechanics, an object, e.g. an electron at a location in the atomic orbit can without seeming to traverse the 'space in between', arrive at a different location, the so called 'quantum jumping'"

The electron does not jump from any definite position to any other definite position, because it never has any definite position. "Orbits" are not states of definite position, but states of rather definite energy. To be more precise : quantum states of the atoms are in a Hilbert space where can be defined a Hamiltonian operator that distinguishes "distinct energy levels" by its eigenvectors. Depending on circumstances, we can consider a given atom to be in a specific energy level in the list of possible energy levels (eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian), but nothing generally obliges this. The energies of these levels are defined down to a quite thinner accuracy than the intervals between these energy levels themselves. However they are still not infinitely precise, since atoms are not isolated systems but interact with their environment, at least the electromagnetic field. In particular, the typical time it takes to emit a photon, defines a quantum uncertainty on the interval between energy levels themselves.

So, since orbitals are not states of definite position, any question of "space in between" is senseless.

"extended points may not be eternally existing physical objects"

Before wondering if they are eternally existing, a first question would be whether they are physical objects at all. Basically, "extended points" is just an English phrase. It is not clear if this phrase can make any sense in physics, and which one, depending on a theory of physics that we need to specify as a reference if we want to give our English phrases any precise meaning.

"but can appear and disappear spontaneously, or when induced to do so"

Do you allow for a quantum uncertainty on whether or not they did ?

"I crave the reader's indulgence here to temporarily set aside current doctrine on the eternal existence of points"

I never heard about any such doctrine, as concerns physics. (There is no such doctrine in maths either, since "eternal" should refer to a stability along time, but Euclidean geometry does not admit any concept of time in the first place, so that there is no quality of eternity either to be formulated and claimed in the mathematical language of geometry).

I might continue another time with the last pages, but to tell my general opinion: I see this essay as rather boring, with ideas more repeated than developed, and not well related enough to what is actually known about physics. On roughly the same topic, I found the essay by William T. Parsons, "Are Boltzmann Brains running Hilbert's Hotel?" much more interesting and relevant. See my comment there about the issue of the infinitely small.

view post as summary

Akinbo,

As requested, I've read the text of the SR essay that you provided. Firstly, let me state that I do not consider myself to be very knowledgeable regarding SR. I am aware of the paradoxes and I studied the subject very briefly in a Physics class in college. People who take a degree in Physics dedicate an entire semester or more to the subject. My background includes only a few...

view entire post

Akinbo,

As requested, I've read the text of the SR essay that you provided. Firstly, let me state that I do not consider myself to be very knowledgeable regarding SR. I am aware of the paradoxes and I studied the subject very briefly in a Physics class in college. People who take a degree in Physics dedicate an entire semester or more to the subject. My background includes only a few lectures, some homework, and a test.

I have a few comments and observations.

You should put your name, a date, and a revision number in the title block on the front page.

On page 3, you apply SR to photons. I don't think SR allows that. Your details are correct, but they contain an assumption that SR does not allow. You need a third reference frame to measure the motion of both photons. That reference frame is your point O. The problem here is that SR is limited to two reference frames at once. So, you can use O and one photon, or you can use both photons. But you cannot use O and both photons.

So, the only thing that the observer at O can state is that the two photons returned at the same time after 2 years. My understanding of SR does not allow me to say how much time passed for the photons. It appears to me that they are timeless.

Having said that, I agree with you. You SHOULD be able to use as many reference frames as you want. And you SHOULD get the same conclusion for every reference frame. That is one of the things that troubles me regarding SR.

On a related matter, what you present is part of the logic associated with "pair production". Photons are typically created in pairs. The reason is that the photon has momentum and momentum must be conserved.

When AE defined the velocity of light, he used the round-trip time in a manner that is essentially what you present. To my thinking, this obscures something very important. For this thought experiment to happen in reality, the photons must be emitted at O. They must be absorbed at the mirrors. They must be emitted again at the mirrors. And they must be reabsorbed at their point of origin. Therefore, the absorption and emission character of light is built into SR. Essentially, I think that making sense or SR will require a solution to the mechanics of absorption and emission.

I suppose it is possible that dark matter is a wave medium. But it is also possible that dark matter is not real but instead is the result of incorrect understanding of gravity.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

view post as summary

Greetings Akinbo -

Are you close to Lagos? I passed through to catch a cheap flight to New York and then my home in Louisville KY on returning from Peace Corps service building fish ponds in Cameroon in 1992. Hope the maniacal Boko Haram menace poses no direct threat to your life and work.

Pardon my long delay in replying to your comment (repeated below) on my Trick or Truth essay,...

view entire post

Greetings Akinbo -

Are you close to Lagos? I passed through to catch a cheap flight to New York and then my home in Louisville KY on returning from Peace Corps service building fish ponds in Cameroon in 1992. Hope the maniacal Boko Haram menace poses no direct threat to your life and work.

Pardon my long delay in replying to your comment (repeated below) on my Trick or Truth essay, but some personal struggles with divorce attorneys (and the US surveillance state's sniffing the cellphone-panties of its so-called allies) have led once again to a few months of incarceration. In full and lifelong but peaceful revolt against state-sponsored espionage and the global rule of politicians' manmade laws over the natural laws of science, I'm also battling the absurd inconsistencies in physics relating to big-bang creationism and to the zoo of alleged particles of zero dimension assumed to be simultaneously multidimensional waves??

The predictive power and self-consistency of math and logic, driven by conflict in theory v experiment, prodded Einstein toward his novel assumption of light-speed constancy thereby refining Newton's magical action-at-a-distance into Riemannian spacetime curvature. I'm betting the same math and further novel assumptions - again driven by confusion such as dark matter, dark energy (and why not dark time?) - will do the same regarding priests Lemaitre, Guth and Hawking's magical inflation of reality from a mythical primeval-atom singularity.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and the night sky will provide it once technical sensitivity advances sufficiently (if it hasn't already?) to permit detection of fluctuations in the waves of CMB temperature anisotropies: these waves are not a static ancient postcard from the last scattering surface at cosmological reionization, but rather dance like the surface of a gentle sea in a cadence set by the collective stochastic swarming of galaxies through gravitation's 4 dimensionality. COBE, WMAP, PLANCK and WEBB aren't showing us baby-picture postcards from the remote coastal sea at eternity's birth, they're showing us we are floating dynamically on that very sea all around and within us in the form of unobservable spacetime curvature's galactic-scale geodesics and the quark-scale zero-point ether-energy of quantum jittering.

Such novel ideas never take hold peacefully among the titanic professorial intellects battling ruthlessly for scientific funding supremacy in the zero-sum, winner-take-all, one-theory-wins-only-by-destroying-competitors game of taming reality into the cage of grand unification; an early adherent of continuous creation of our eternal universe named Giordano Bruno was burned alive by the Pope and his priests of fanaticism in the year 1600 while Galileo quieted his visionary courtship of Truth rather than be summarily assassinated by the monstrous power of religious superstition.

The somnambulant spirits of Bruno and Hoyle fuel my revolt against the conventional witchcraft of limitlessly tunable accelerating inflation, a Rube-Goldbergian theory so malleable as to embrace any observational wrinkles whatsoever arising through observation to confront it. As an applied mathematician, the acceleratingly inflationary model of an expanding universe is beyond abominable, it is an outright rape of the elegant self-consistency and falsifiable predictability of relativity itself.

Would like to respond to the issues you raise below if you're still active here at fqxi... do you have a gmail address? I'm at kevinbootes09ATgmailDOTcom

(Hello Kevin,

I would not know your motivation for writing in this poetic way. Perhaps, to hide the many hidden truths, which I find, from those who do not desire that truth return to our physics.

I will not engage you on the Michelson-Morley experimental results which you pointed to.

I will first like you to tell me where this wonderful tourist destination called FlatLand is?

Second, concerning the photon, someone in this community, Armin Shirazi wrote a paper where he discussed a 'photon existence paradox', although he claims to still support SR. It goes somehow like this, if it is as it is claimed that time does not flow for a photon, then it follows that the time of emission of a photon is the same as the time of its absorption, how then can photon exist?

All the best in the competition.

Regards,

Akinbo)

view post as summary