Dear Vladimir F. Tamari ,

Every year I look forward to your art and essay. Growing up on the Mississippi River, and growing up with Einstein's ideas, I appreciate your title. I too believe it is the River of Now that we are rolling on.

You mentioned the world turned upside down with special relativity and velocity-dependent attributes. In my mind this is another case of...

view entire post

Dear Vladimir F. Tamari ,

Every year I look forward to your art and essay. Growing up on the Mississippi River, and growing up with Einstein's ideas, I appreciate your title. I too believe it is the River of Now that we are rolling on.

You mentioned the world turned upside down with special relativity and velocity-dependent attributes. In my mind this is another case of focusing on the mathematical projections imposed on reality by physicists. I believe in the physical reality and seek to understand such reality through appropriate models. For example, I believe the appropriate model for special relativity is the "radar" model. My radar sits in my rest frame in London and sends a pulse at the speed of light toward a V2 rocket headed for London with velocity v. When my pulse strikes the nose of the V2, it returns to me at the speed of light. But a portion of the radar pulse wave-front continues toward the tail of the rocket. While my pulse travels to the tail fin at c, the tail fin is traveling toward me at v, and analysis of the return pulse implies that the V2 rocket is shorter in length than is actually the case.

Since I cannot reach out and touch an object in another inertial frame, but can only send and receive messages traveling at the speed of light, [even if that varies from place to place or time to time!] then Newtonian physics dictates a "length contraction" for objects so measured in a frame moving with respect to myself. I see no reason to believe the V2 has turned into silly putty. I simply see that communication at the finite speed of light complicates analysis of communications between moving reference frames.

Similarly, the "clock model" that times 'ticks' in terms of the round-trip travel between a source and detector on the floor of the railroad car and a mirror on the ceiling will show time dilation for moving clocks, compared to the identical optical clock stationary in the station. Again, essentially the radar model. No nonsense about "perfect" clocks.

I agree that the Equivalence Principle has problems. It completely fails when either tidal forces or local rotation cannot be ignored. Why choose a fundamental principle that has glaring exceptions? The main consequence is that the gravitational energy of the field can always be transformed away in a suitable reference frame, yielding a purely geometric formalism. This follows from ignoring the Maxwell-Einstein gravito-magnetic aspects of dynamic gravity. If these aspects are considered it plays havoc with the Equivalence Principle and also with Copenhagen 'particle-wave duality'. The gravito-magnetic wave induced by ultra-dense matter (such as electrons) cannot be ignored. It is primarily due to the statistical/thermodynamic Partition function that the wavelength of this field can be related to energy and hence probability, resulting in the endless confusion known as QM.

I am amazed and pleased that your summary diagram on page 6 is almost 100% compatible with my theory of reality (with the possible exception of the bottom left corner [21st c]). You have been very busy my friend!

To tie some of this together, I hope you find the time to look at my recent paper

The Nature of Quantum Gravity

I think you will like it. The issue with Bell derived from his projecting the 'qubit' "two state" model onto a simplistic interpretation of Stern-Gerlach. But there is no fiercer branch of the QM religion than the church of the entanglement, so that is a fight to be avoided if possible. Thank God as you note, there are competent thinkers outside the establishment to do the work that must be done to escape the mess we're in.

I am in full agreement with viewing gravity as aether that acts as an optical field of variable index of refraction bending light. Since local gravity (aether) did not change for Michelson and Morley, wherever in orbit, they should've expected null results!

I showed in my dissertation that any axiomatic theory of physics can be formulated as automata. An example in my endnotes shows the mapping between the canonical form and one of Feynman's path integral terms. I also observed that the automaton's 'next state address' is conceptually equivalent to potential (as shown in the example.)

Vladimir it is so rewarding to see that many here continue to improve their theories in their essays every year. You and I are converging in many areas. That is so pleasing.

My very best wishes for you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

PS. Can you recommend a specific paper or place I should study to familiarize myself with Eric Reiter's work?

view post as summary

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman

I think our friendly exchanges go back to 2011 - I am grateful for your wise, level encouraging voice amidst all the cacophony of enthusiastically declared ideas, including my own! Thank you for your kind encouraging comments. Indeed mathematics is almost magical and many different formulations can be applied to the same physical situation, creating many...

view entire post

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman

I think our friendly exchanges go back to 2011 - I am grateful for your wise, level encouraging voice amidst all the cacophony of enthusiastically declared ideas, including my own! Thank you for your kind encouraging comments. Indeed mathematics is almost magical and many different formulations can be applied to the same physical situation, creating many explanation. And since Feynman taught a generation not to think of the fundamentals of QM, the muddled thinking about the basics continues.

Your 'radar' explanation of the shrinking of length with speed is exactly what I have attempted but not published for relativity in my Beautiful Universe model: mirrors are attached to the front and and back of the moving body all in a discrete ether with a maximum of c. Pure Doppler physics! I read an amazing paper about two university professors in the US (or Canada?) who recently repeated Fizeau's experiment (praised by Einstein) and found a Doppler explanation exactly matches the measured speeds of light in moving water, but not the Special Relativistic explanation does not match it! Alas I lost the reference.

My objection was not exactly to the Equivalence Principle itself, since one can extend the concept of acceleration to non-homogenious fields such as a vortex. Rather it was to the extra equations that had to be introduced because SR had to be included. I hope that is right thinking, as my technical knowledge of GR is meagre - just a strong intuition that an alternative is feasible. I wish I could follow your gravity paper on its own level. I shall read it again. Your agreeing with the the chart showing problems in physics allays my worries that my understanding is wrong.

Church of entanglement haha perfect!! Again strong intuition that Bell is saying nothing special, and that the whole effect can be explained classically, (once probability is not taken as given).

Yes we outliers as we have been called, are slowly gaining on the mainline since more and more people are realizing that the center of physics has been fundamentally bankrupt for some decades. Eric Reiter's work should be repeated and checked - he is a meticulous researcher and his findings are very important if confirmed and generally accepted. He has a FQXI essay in a previous contest, also a new website www.threshholdmodel.com

I look forward to reading your current essay.

Keep well dear friend and keep up the great work!

Vladimir

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Vladimir,

Lovely essay, as usual, very readable, straight to the point and beautifully illustrated. Also we agree on all fundamentals and most other things as usual, except a couple of minor matters this year I'll raise below. In particular I like your important point that AE was; "..ready until the end of his life to question his own ideas and to abandon them if new and contradictory...

view entire post

Vladimir,

Lovely essay, as usual, very readable, straight to the point and beautifully illustrated. Also we agree on all fundamentals and most other things as usual, except a couple of minor matters this year I'll raise below. In particular I like your important point that AE was; "..ready until the end of his life to question his own ideas and to abandon them if new and contradictory evidence emerged. It is high time we physicists do the same." Never a truer or more important word written!

Your 2nd Fig. shows SR linked direct to QM. Of course the current formulations are inconsistent (Penrose agrees)as QM uses 'absolute' time. I've identified in this and previous essays that SR does of course work with absolute time as long as local speed modulation to c is by local interactions. I see you agree that in a blog comment above, but might your lovely fig. not be mistaken as suggesting otherwise?

Similarly the ether as a 'carrying' medium. Reverting from condensed particle interactions (re-emission at each particles local c whatever speed it's doing wrt anything else) ) to the condensate itself even with it's density variations would only takes us back to the great 100yr old problem that SR a was designed to solve. Did you really mean that? (if so how is it solved?) or is your blog comment above the better description (your previously position).

I was also a little concerned about your seeming to dismiss ANY 'duality', when clearly the re-emissions from interactions with fermions locally 're-quantize' the wave energy, which then spreads again ('as the Schrodinger sphere'). Reading again more carefully you don't dismiss that, so as always; 'banner headlines' can be misunderstood. Is my analysis correct? (really just 'nit-picking' semantics!) Overall I agree four square again, and enjoyed the read. It really is a beautiful universe!

I do think and hope you'll also like mine this year, which I think you'll see reveals an important hidden truth about so called 'probability'. Of course cognitive dissonance will still render it invisible to most! I hope you'll also watch the video which is far better at showing the dynamics.

https://vimeo.com/195020202

Very best

Peter

view post as summary

Nice essay Vladimir Tamari,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent

1. A much simpler theory of gravity is possible: in a gravitational field the local energy density of the ether acts like an optical field of variable index of refraction, bending light as it does in a desert mirage, where heat creates layers of air with decreasing density, refracting light and make it curve.

2....

view entire post

Nice essay Vladimir Tamari,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent

1. A much simpler theory of gravity is possible: in a gravitational field the local energy density of the ether acts like an optical field of variable index of refraction, bending light as it does in a desert mirage, where heat creates layers of air with decreasing density, refracting light and make it curve.

2. Enter Cellular Automata

It sounds easier to banish, ditch, jettison or drop the cornerstones of 20th century

physics than to reconstruct it anew from first principles.

A Good proposal , I fully agree with you…………

………………… At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at my essay… “Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe” where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement…..

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Be
st wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please…………….

=snp. gupta

view post as summary