Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

recastel: on 5/24/11 at 11:09am UTC, wrote As I've suspected all along, there are others who actually quite see the...

re castel: on 5/9/11 at 19:12pm UTC, wrote For John, Edwin, James, Xiang, Ray, and everyone: John, you say: ***...

re castel: on 5/8/11 at 17:19pm UTC, wrote Ray, If you haven't read it, my continuous creation idea actually explains...

Ray Munroe: on 5/7/11 at 13:15pm UTC, wrote Hi Rafael, I think that many of us have core belief systems that somewhat...

re castel: on 5/7/11 at 1:59am UTC, wrote Ray, The Big Bang idea has been dead a long time ago. Perhaps, even dead...

re castel: on 5/7/11 at 1:47am UTC, wrote I just posted the following in Florin's blog. Hi, all ye FQXi folks! I...

Ray Munroe: on 5/6/11 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Rafael, Your Figure 4 is basically a tokamak geometry - similar to...

re castel: on 5/5/11 at 23:25pm UTC, wrote Ray, you missed a lot of points again. You should reconsider the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Discrete and Continuous Realities According to Fundamental Laws of Nature by Rafael Emmanuel Castel [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author re castel wrote on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 10:22 GMT
Essay Abstract

The analysis of the all-encompassing existence, broken down to the level of the most fundamental, clarifies fundamental laws of nature that describe a generalized picture of the synthesis of the discrete and the continuous realities brought about by the transformation processes that fundamentally occur in nature.

Author Bio

The author is a B.A. graduate of BYU-Hawaii and presently a systems developer-integrator and information systems consultant.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 15:40 GMT
Admittedly, there are the so-called established theories from the Einsteinian revolution. But those 'established theories' have questionable ideas once you examine the assumptions and interpretations at the fundamental level.

I've looked at the fundamental level and have found several questionable ideas in those "established theories." I examined the fundamental transformation laws that Einstein used to derive his famous formula. I've compared the idea of space-time transformations and the idea of motion transformations. I am convinced that the latter is more logical and rational than Einstein's idea of space-time transformations.

The idea of motion transformations allows a good picture of how motion gets quantized in terms of particulate mass and energy quanta, especially according to the new interpretations of the mass-energy formulations and the idea of a hierarchical cosmos.

The essay is only 7 pages long and should be easy reading even to the layman.

Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 14:55 GMT
This is a reply to Ray Munroe following the discussion we have at his thread.

Ray, you say:

"I think that the upper scale limit is the speed of light, the lower scale limit is the Planck scale, and that Spacetime warps at these scale boundaries to form lattice-like structures. Perhaps the outer boundary of our Observable Universe is a graphene-like lattice as Subir Sacdev proposes, and perhaps the core of the Black Hole is a Buckyball-like lattice. These lattice-like structures cause the Spacetime curvature to collapse such that we cannot see these scales. Simultaineously, these lattice-like structures may be useful in describing the Holographic Principle - whereby quantum gravity at the Multiverse scale is converted into Spacetime curvature at the Cosmic scale (Observable Universe)."

I note of course that the above is mostly conjecture as implied by your phrases - 'perhaps', etc... Plus, they are unverifiable; 'we cannot see these scales" by your own admission.

Nevertheless, on the premise of your 'I think', you say the upper scale limit is the speed of light and the lower scale limit is the Planck scale. How are the scales applied?

Also, on the premise of your 'Perhaps', you say "quantum gravity at the Multiverse scale is converted into Spacetime curvature at the Cosmic scale". The quantum gravity is, if I am not mistaken, 'curvature' at the quantum scale, and you say this quantum curvature is at the Multiverse scale, and then this is converted into 'curvature' at the Cosmic scale. This is a bit confusing. Your descriptions need more clarifications.

Going back to your scales, let me do the list again but with a bit of editing.

- the Super-Cosmic scale (Multiverse scale), this scale is associated with a Graviton space or field (continuous)

- the Cosmic scale (Universe scale), with a Gravitino space (discrete)

- the Classical scale, with a Vector Boson space (continuous)

- the Quantum scale, with a matter Fermion space (discrete)

- the sub-Quantum scale (Dirac scale), with a Scalar Boson space (continuous), + you indicated "the Higgs Mechanism and the origin of mass" in the Dirac scale

Considering the idea of the Multiverse - what do we have in the spaces between the myriad of universes of the multiverse? Do we have quantum Gravitons there?

I am asking the above because my next logical question is about the components of the Multiverse and what governs the interactions between the components of the Multiverse.

Do we have a Multiverse composed of relatively similar universes? In other words, do we have homogeniety at the level of universes?

Or would you say there are clusters of universes, clusters of clusters of universes, superclusters of universes, clusters of superclusters of universes, and so on?

And finally, at what level do you see any possible decoupling of components according to the scale limits?

Ray, I must let you know - I find the articulation of a Multiverse rather superfluous, since I am inclined to believe in an infinite hierarchical cosmos and in spite of the idea of perhaps the 'decoupling' at the very large scale.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 15:44 GMT
Dear Rafael,

You said:

"Considering the idea of the Multiverse - what do we have in the spaces between the myriad of universes of the multiverse? Do we have quantum Gravitons there?"

I think that the Multiverse is an infinite Cantor set - hollow but not empty - with self-similar scales. The phase transition that caused Inflation could have caused other scales of inflation. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 15:56 GMT
Ray,

We obviously differ in our language. Perhaps among the most difficult problems in science is the language. Science uses both logic (words) and math (numbers) to convey knowledge and reason. The language of words is obviously more powerful because human beings learn the intricacies of the language of words first before they learn the intricacies of the math language. Also, there are more people who learn the intricacies of the language of words. The math language is said to be more precise, but only after the interpretations and the numbers are verified by empirical evidence.

The English language is not my native tongue. I actually needed to study it formally in order to have at least a modicum proficiency in this language tool.

As for my math, the people I met in my youth said I had the aptitude for the math language to the level of its intricacies. But I think it never got sufficiently polished in me as a language tool. I understand some of the math, even the complex, and I can even make radical interpretations sometimes. But, as a language tool to convey ideas, I use it at the simplex level.

Going back to the topic... I like the simplex approach in solving the problem. This essay contest is about the digital (discrete) and the analog (continuous). My position is that reality has both the discrete and the continuous aspects.

In my essay I've identified the continuous aspects in the existence - namely, the time dimension, the space dimension, the instance of existence, the substance of existence. I've stated that these are the fundamentally passive essences.

I've also identified the discrete aspects in the existence - namely, duration along the time dimension, and motion within the space dimension. I've stated that these are the fundamentally active occurrences (currents).

My assertion is that all these are fundamental aspects and are of infinite supply in the existence. And I've pointed out that natural laws of transformation govern the reality in the existence.

Regarding the phenomena in nature, I've proponed that it is motion that gets quantized and it is motion that renders the discrete definitions in the ethereal substance in space.

Regarding the noumena in nature, I've pointed out that duration is the process of transformation that is effected on the instance of existence along the time dimension.

I've pointed out that duration and motion occur in unison but they never interact because the abstract duration and the tangible motion are fundamentally separate aspects of reality.

It is my position that the fundamental essence of mass and energy is motion, that motion, mass and energy are the rendered definitions on the substance of existence that occupies 3-D space. It is my position that the fundamental idea regarding space is that "it gets occupied" - that is why it is called space.

There is the motion of motions and hence the transformations of motion. The various motion occurrences (the various currents) within 3-D space interact and render various kinematic definitions on the ethereal substance. And 'common sense' shows that the motions resolve into the resultant motions effected by the motion transformation process.

There is the duration that renders the definition on the instance of existence. But nothing else interacts with the process of duration since the time dimension is characterized as having a single dimension. No other duration vector can be represented in the time dimension, so there is no duration transformation that can occur along the time dimension other than the process of duration that 'common sense' presents.

The space dimension is the realm of the tangible (corporeal) occurrence we call motion. The time dimension is the realm of the abstract occurrence that we call duration. The corporeal and the abstract are separate; therefore, duration and motion do not interact - although they occur in unison.

Regarding the cosmos, my view is that the cosmos is an infinite hierarchy of tangible domains made out of quantized motions. I have shown in my essay the fundamental formulations regarding the quantization of motion (the same formulations that Einstein used to derive his famous formula); and I have explained in my essay my interpretations of the formulations. I propone an infinitely hierarchical cosmos because that is the only way I can explain why gravitation occurs. It is my position that gravitation can be explained according to the most fundamental principles of pure kinematics only if the cosmos is hierarchical.

In my essay, I have not included detailed explanations regarding my more comprehensive view because I think I have satisfied the requirements of the essay contest with my identification and characterizations of the fundamental aspects of reality, which are necessary for the clarification of the appropriate answer to the question "Is Reality Digital or Analog?"

If my future finances and corporeality will permit, then perhaps I might eventually be able to present my more comprehensive view...

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 19:54 GMT
Dear Rafael,

When I taught Physics, I told my students that Physics is a bilingual language skill. First, you must propose the problem in your native language, then you convert the problem into the appropriate physical model and set of mathematical equations, then you solve the mathematics, and finally you explain your reasoning and your conclusion in your native language.

I took foreign languages in High School and College, but the reality is I am more competant at my mathematics than I am at either of those languages (I live in northern Florida, and don't have many opportunities to practice foreign languages).

I think we agree on a lot. I did have concerns over the following paragraph:

"Regarding the cosmos, my view is that the cosmos is an infinite hierarchy of tangible domains made out of quantized motions. I have shown in my essay the fundamental formulations regarding the quantization of motion (the same formulations that Einstein used to derive his famous formula); and I have explained in my essay my interpretations of the formulations. I propone an infinitely hierarchical cosmos because that is the only way I can explain why gravitation occurs. It is my position that gravitation can be explained according to the most fundamental principles of pure kinematics only if the cosmos is hierarchical."

I completely agree that the cosmos is hierarchal, but I think that there are a limited number of (perhaps 4 or 5) different hierarchal scales. Because the Multiverse is infinite, there would be an infinite number of Universes, but these are all self-similar, and not random chance "Monte Carlo" physical generators with an infinite number of possible hierarchies.

Good luck in the contest!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 02:19 GMT
Ray,

I actually think that there is a limited number of scales.

I think black holes are the upper density limit of the quantized domains. I don't think a black hole can be of infinite density. I think black holes actually spew out quantized (particulate) motions at the galactic level. I think that, as the infinite cosmos expands, the galaxies spawn proto-galaxies that develop or have black holes at their centers, such that a typical kinematic density is maintained by the galaxies.

I think the lower density limit is the void where the motions cancel out. An empirical example of the void would be the interference region that we see in double-slit experiments - we know that the electromagnetic motions are there, except that they are cancelled-out to a dark zero-average manifestation. The great cosmic voids are the grander examples.

In-between the voids and the black holes, we have the scales comprising the quantum electromagnetic phenomena, the particulate quantum kinematic constructs (the fundamental quantum particles), the nuclear (atomic) constructs, the molecular kinematic constructs, the chemical compounds, the collapsed kinematic constructs like the neutron stars, etc.

Thus, we have the overall scale comprising (1) the voids at the vacuous end, (2) everything in-between, and (3) the black holes at the high-density end. And these are the components of (4) the gravitationally held cosmic sub-structures (subsystems) that populate (5) the infinite cosmic structure (system).

So, according to this view, we have at least four or five scales. In this, I agree with you.

My details are a bit scarce. But I hope my own descriptions for the scales are clear enough.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 02:46 GMT
Dear Rafael,

I like your descriptions. I have been pondering these ideas for months, but haven't internalized them well enough to push to the next logical step. I think that Lawrence Crowell has been making significant progress in studying SO(16)~E8xE8*, but this configuration does not contain enough scales or dimensions to represent my expectations of a TOE.

The great aspect of these essay contests is that we get exposed to other ideas that may (or may not?) help us in our research pursuits.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 13:53 GMT
Hi

Dear Rafael, a BH is a sphere with a V and a m, it turns , rotates and has a finite density and mass indeed.It has a rule of equilibrium of mass simply, we understand why it's ironic when people wants creating it in a lab.

Thanks for your rationalism.

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 06:25 GMT
Dear Sir,

We had gone through your excellent article. Here are a few of our comments.

You say: “The imaginary are abstract realities, but are illusions that can never be embodied in the phenomena because they do not conform to the laws of the phenomena in nature. Conversely, the real can be embodied in the phenomena.”

But how is an imaginary concept is perceived? Even for...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 22:09 GMT
Dear basudeba,

Among other mentions of entanglement and non-locality above, you state: "The definition of simultaneity of Einstein is contradicted by the phenomenon of quantum entanglement."

You might be interested to know that Joy Christian here has presented what I consider a very convincing argument that John Bell incorrectly calculated his measure as 2, when the correct result is 2*sqrt(2).

If Christian is correct, and Bell was wrong, then there are no "violations" of Bell's [correctly calculated] inequality, and *ALL* of the arguments about 'non-local' and 'non-real' entanglement physics simply vanish, a four decades long mistake.

I recommend to everyone who bases their arguments on entanglement and non-locality that they read Christian and decide for themselves whether he is correct in his reasoning. He has convinced me.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 01:54 GMT
Dear Sir,

We do not dispute the phenomena of entanglement, only we give a different explanation to the phenomena. Elsewhere in this forum we have given our views. Here we only summarize those views.

We hold that only field is absolute and particles are nothing but locally confined fields. We do not hold gravity as an attractive force, but a stabilizing force. You agree that gravity...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 21:26 GMT
Basudeba,

Your post is very long. So, I will try to answer only as much as I could.

You asked "how is an imaginary concept is [sic] perceived?"...

An imaginary concept is a concept that is not directly based on or directly evidenced by a perceived reality. An imaginary concept is a concept that is abstractly evolved (apperceived) from conceptions of perceived realities. An imaginary concept is an apperceived concept. For example, an imaginary number is a conception based on the idea of a real number and the proven idea of the square root function. Real numbers can be quantified in phenomena and the square root function can be applied on real numbers which may result in what can be quantified. But, here's the apperception - in the case of negative numbers, when the square root function is applied on a negative number the result is a number that cannot be quantified; this unquantifiable number is an imaginary number; it is a pure abstraction and is real as such; but it does not belong to the category of the abstract real numbers that can be quantified; it belongs to what is called the purely imaginary abstracts. This makes sense to me in spite of the limitations imposed by the language.

An imaginary concept is an abstraction and is real only in the sense that it is an abstract. But an imaginary concept cannot be quantified or corporealized.

As for your example of the mirage, a mirage is as real as it is - a mirage.

As for my idea of 'dimension' that you question, you should consider lengths; and don't confuse the idea of lengths with the idea of vectors.

You say "a dimension...is the spread in a given direction associated with solids."

I assure you, one will have difficulty imagining a solid with only the idea of a line that has merely the 'points' along it.

Please understand that I use the relevant words only to represent ideas. It is up to the reader to capture the contextual sense of the words.

You say that I say: "... substances in space are fundamental passive essences".

You have misquoted me in this. I did not make the plural reference 'substances' in my essay. I've carefully written the word 'substance' in the singular form, which I use to refer to the singular and fundamental, 'untextured' space-occupying essence that fills all space. Motion renders the differentiated 'texture' on the substance; without the motion, the substance is ethereal; although, clearly, space, substance, and motion always co-exist because they are fundamental essences.

By 'essences' I mean to convey the idea of that which have fundamental 'esse' or existence. I mentioned six fundamental essences in my essay. They are:

In the noumena: the time dimension (1-D), the instance of existence, and duration. In the phenomena: the space dimension (3-D), the substance of existence, and motion.

The instance of existence is ephemeral, and duration gives it its definition, with the 1-D time dimension as the 'background' essence in the noumena of nature. The substance of existence is ethereal, and motion gives it its definition, with the 3-D space dimension as the 'background' essence in the phenomena of nature.

The time dimension 'contains' the instance of existence, and the instance of existence fills the time dimension. The space dimension 'contains' the substance of existence, and the substance of existence fills the space dimension. These are 'essences' in that they exist. But they are not 'occurrences' since they are not 'currents'. They do not 'flow' and hence are not 'active'. Thus, these are fundamentally the passive essences.

The active essences are duration and motion. These are 'essences' in that they exist. And these are also the 'occurrences' since they are 'currents'. They flow and hence are active. These are fundamentally the essences that occur - the fundamental essences of change.

Regarding my statement that "A duration transformation always corresponds to a motion transformation", you say that this "may be misleading." You will only be misled by yourself if you misunderstand the fundamentals that I have set forth in my essay.

You say: "Though we generally agree with your views on space-time transformation, it need not be true always."

Just to be clear about my views, I do not subscribe to the idea of space-time transformation. I am a proponent of the idea of motion transformations and the idea of duration transformation; and it looks like I am the original proponent of these ideas, original especially in the sense respecting the extent of the clarifications of these ideas as compared to what has been done by anyone before me (as far as I know).

You say: "A particle may remain in the same position (absence of relative motion) during a fixed duration."

In my view, there is no such thing as a "fixed duration" and there is always the "relative motion" for any given particle.

You say: "Talking about absolute motion is meaningless for physical processes."

I believe that motion is an existential reality and in that sense is absolute. But also try looking at motion in the three-dimensional perspective and perhaps you will find the meaningful "absolute motion" that I see. Consider the idea of gravitation and apply the principle of the relativity of motion; and then consider a given mass as having the relative motion in all directions; resolved the motions into a tensor; perhaps you will also see the given mass accelerating in three-dimensions; and then you can consider the relativistic mass-energy equation...

You say: [However, we got your meaning as "passage along the time dimension" to imply physical transformation in time, which is a continual process, independent of other factors. Other factors modify it differently, which causes time dilation.]

If you mean "physical" equals "natural", then that's fine with me. However, I specifically mean the passage of the instance of existence according to the definition effected by the process of duration along the time dimension. Also, I do not believe in "time dilation"; it is an illusion.

Instead of the time dilation, I believe that subluminal, luminal, and superluminal velocities are possible according to the principle of the relativity of motion.

For instance, consider the idea of a rotation on a plane. Consider a rotation with a radius of 1 meter that completes a cycle every second with respect to the rest of the plane viewed as being at rest; according to the principle of the relativity of motion, one may view the occurrence as the rotation of the part with the 1 meter radius, or, conversely, one may view the occurrence as the rotation of the rest of the plane with an infinite radius with the 1 meter radius viewed as being at rest. How fast do you think is the relative rotational motion out at a radius of one light-year with the rotation completing a cycle every second? I think the relative rotational speed out there at a radius of one light-year would be at superluminal speed.

You say: "While it is the internal transformation, motion transformation is the transformation of the body as a whole from one position to another position."

Yes, it is, among others. however, in my mind I also see three-dimensional translations. The formulations I explained in my essay show motion transformations into particulate mass as well as into quantized energy.

Regarding Einstein, the man proposed many ideas that I also am critical of. But you gotta credit the man for his insight regarding the mass-energy relation. He was the first to have presented the connection with the classical K.E. from the transformation equations; and he was the first to have successfully published the revolutionary ramifications of the famous E=mc2 formula. It does not matter so much even if somebody else derived the transformation equations and/or the famed formula before he did. It was Einstein who successfully presented the 'connection' and the 'ramifications' that gave us a revolutionary understanding of the E=mc2 formula. But, beyond that, Einstein also proponed ideas that may aptly be called illusions.

Regarding comments for the rest of your post,... later perhaps.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


basudeba replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 02:42 GMT
Dear Sir,

Kindly excuse us it our post has hurt your feelings. But our intention was not to score a point, but to unveil the ultimate reality through healthy discussion on the subject. With the same purpose we continue:

You say: "An imaginary concept is a concept that is abstractly evolved (apperceived) from conceptions of perceived realities." We agree to the statement, but would...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author re castel replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 07:20 GMT
basudeba,

No hurt feelings here. Just answering the call for the clarifications.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 14:50 GMT
This is following up on Ray's reference regarding the search for a TOE...

I have not yet deeply explored the possibilities for a TOE. But my idea of motion transformations suggests that the most varied transformations are most likely to occur in the densest gravitational systems - like the neutron stars and black holes. Black holes gobble up not just mass but also energy. If the energy gobbled up by black holes actually get condensed into particulate mass, then the black hole is a particle generator.

Recently, Stephen Hawking essentially proponed the idea of the "spontaneous creation" of mass (although he is not the first). The idea of "spontaneous creation" and the idea of the black hole as a "particle generator" points to the idea that gravitation is the key to a TOE.

Gut feeling tells me that a fruitful research area would be the exploration of particle production in black holes and how the particles get spewed out, distributed, and quantum-stabilized in the galaxies.

Already we have the suggestions (1) regarding Hawking particles, (2) regarding black holes at the center of galaxies, (3) regarding the possible spawning of proto-galaxies facilitated in the large spiral galaxies, and (4) regarding an infinitely hierarchical cosmos established according to the cosmic structures already observed.

If I am right regarding my idea about the cause of gravitation and my idea that gravitation facilitates mass-formation, and then if the science world somehow managed to establish the range of particles produced in black holes and somehow managed to find the appropriate explanation regarding how these particles are quantum-stabilized in the galaxies, then I think we will have a TOE.

I think the scientific community will do well by focusing their maths and research on the study of the creation of particulate mass in the superdense black holes and extend the study to cover the processes whereby the created particulate masses are quantum-stabilized in the galaxies.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Ray B Munroe replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 21:06 GMT
Dear Raphael,

I agree. This is why Lawrence Crowell (Relativity PhD with a Mathematics MS) and I (Particle Physics PhD) have been corresponding. Many of Lawrence's papers are on the topic of Black Holes and Strings. I recommend that you read Lawrence's and Philip Gibbs' essays at:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/798

and

http://ww
w.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/810

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 14:02 GMT
Hihihi Dr Cosmic Ray we know you have your PhD and Lawrence also.Don't insist on that, we see indeed you are skilling even if your conclusions are falses.Infact your main problems are about your foundamentals.But you can be rational,I am persuaded.Good luck in this rationalism, forget these strings and extradimensions of nothing for nothing, all that is pure pseudo science and science fiction.The higgs are falses, the extradimensions do not exist.The multiverses are a joke, the reversible time is an irony.....I can understand it's difficult to change his road, but you can do it I think.

Sincerely

Your friend

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 01:21 GMT
Dear Sphere-Keeper Steve,

If I change the direction of my research, you will probably be one of the first to know. As it stands, I have opened so many doors at the same time that I am confusing myself. Are you going to submit an essay? It seems like everyone has submitted an essay - James and Georgina joined the contest today. If you want to submit an essay, my offer still stands to review and edit your paper. English isn't Rafael's first language either, but he is competant at English.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT
Dear Ray,

I am still studying Crowell's and Gibbs' essays. Although I have not read their other papers, my impression is that there is the necessity of taking the analysis down to the most fundamental level regarding what makes up a string and, for that matter, a black hole.

My gut feeling and the empirical evidences that I've studied so far point to the idea of motion as the fundamental component of strings, black holes, gravity, magnetism, charges, fields, states, forces, and the like.

If the science community will carefully focus on the study of the maths that describe the motion configurations (the kinematic constructs), a breakthrough towards a TOE might be forthcoming.

But this requires that we give up the preference for the idea of spacetime transformations and focus on the idea of motion transformations.

Among the critical questions that must be answered first would be regarding what causes gravity. Everything that we have so far is a description of gravity, not the description of what fundamentally causes gravity. To me the "mass warping space" idea is unsatisfactory.

I think the idea of an infinitely hierarchical cosmos is part of the answer, because this idea points to a natural source of the concentric vector components that make up the 3-D gravitational phenomenon.

Moreover, I think the kinematic configuration that defines gravitation in the very large scale is similar to the kinematic configurations that define the fields and forces in the very small scale. (This is essentially the TOE idea.)

At present I do not have the time and resources to pursue the research on these ideas. Among the reasons why I joined the current essay contest is to somehow point to the new avenue that I propone here regarding the search for the TOE. It doesn't matter to me if other people will discover the TOE. I would be satisfied to have contributed to that search.

I am saying that the idea of "motion transformations" and the idea of "an infinitely hierarchical cosmos" will lead to a TOE.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Rafael,

I agree that "motion transformations" have a place in a TOE. My reciprocal lattice models consist of a spatial lattice and a "momentum lattice", and closed strings have quantized momenta.

I hope that the future gives you more time and resources with which to pursue your ideas. Publication might be inexpensive or even free, but time is always a tricky thing...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 20:55 GMT
Dear Rafael and Ray,

Elsewhere [on Joy Christian's thread] I commented that, perhaps, since this whole thing started with Einstein, it is appropriate to see what he says about spacetime. Peter Jackson quotes Einstein as saying in 1952 that:

"The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relative to each other."

Rafael, I believe this quote supports you in your statement that: "we give up the preference for the idea of spacetime transformations and focus on the idea of motion transformations."

Jackson further claims:

"We view Cartesian coordinates as a 'frame', and refer to inertial frame, yet Einstein referred to a body, or coordinate system rigidly connected to a body."

In my essay local gravito-magnetic or C-fields take the form of induced circulation 'rigidly connected to a body' with momentum. The connection is the '=' sign connecting the C-field circulation to momentum: del cross C = p.

Momentum also allows us to treat entities that have zero rest mass, such as photons. Two such entities forming 'discrete fields' each centered on matter in relative motion are shown in the figure on page 6 of my essay.

I believe that this is in support of Joy Christian's points in answer to Florin's comments on space-time and I believe it supports local realism. And it supports Rafael's comment as I understand it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 00:08 GMT
Eugene,

I read your essay. Good work.

I especially like your "particles from a field" idea in page 5. This is also quite similar to my own idea, albeit my idea and my descriptions of my idea have been pretty much according to the idea of motion transformations.

I think we are approaching points of agreement in our views. But I disagree with the ideas that are still tainted with the "curving space" idea. I understand "curvature" as "acceleration" which is purely of the idea of motion transformations.

You say:

"We need a final assumption: that the curvature of space is limited. Without a limit, space can curve in upon itself to produce infinitely dense mass points — limits prevent this. Electrons and quarks, appear as limits to the curvature of C, and black holes as limits to the curvature of G. Limiting phenomena are defined by mass, charge, and spin ... When the C-field reaches the limit of curvature, the vortex wall is a mass current loop, inducing a secondary C-field circulation and converting to a torus topology..."

Let me clarify a little bit just how I understand this part of your essay regarding the final assumption that "the curvature of space is limited." Of course, this assumption implies that before this assumption there are the assumptions that there are "vectors of space" and that "space can be curved" and hence that space is subject to transformations — e.g., the motion or curvature of space.

I of course disagree with the idea of the "curvature of space", since my idea is about motion (which is represented by a vector) and the motion of motions (which is represented by interacting vectors). My idea differs from your idea quite a bit.

My idea is that motions interact and may be resolved as particulate mass. When motions achieve the torus 'topology', it achieves the particulate configuration. This is clearly among the suggestions from the relativistic equation.

m=mo(1–v2/c2)–1 approx. mo(1+v2/c2)

m=mo(c2/c2+v2/c2)

In this relativistic equation, the term c2/c2 suggests that particulate mass is motion with the luminal speed in a 'rotational' configuration; the relativistic equation also suggests that mass increases as additions to the luminal speed occur. These suggestions can be extended to the idea of all the masses in the observable cosmos being already at the luminal speed and always breaching that particularization or discretization boundary.

The form of the relativistic equation actually suggests that in order to have mass-increases, there has got to be the seed-mass. In other words, without the seed-mass the process that effects the curvature of the motions that bring about mass-increases will not occur.

The relativistic equation therefore suggests that a cosmos must have always existed with the ever-increasing total mass and with a general mass density possibly maintained because of the expansion of the cosmos. Essentially, there is the suggestion that incident condensations are balanced by incident attenuations...

Another beauty of the relativistic equation is the fact that it yields a total increase in terms of mass-energy with half going into the mass formation and with the other half going into the cosmic background radiation. The fact that, for whatever value of mass plugged into the equation, the equivalent energy comprising half of the total increase falls right smack on the energy curve of the cosmic background radiation supports this idea. In my view, this totally kills the big bang theory.

On another note, the torus 'topology' of motion suggests how polarity (the electromagnetic dipoles) occur. The suggestion is that the electric and magnetic are the established current or flow of fundamental motions around the torus. In accordance with the relativistic equation, the established flow of motions are necessarily fed by an infinite vector field (e.g., what others call the 'vector space' or 'degrees of freedom') and could only be balanced by either a replication process and/or a radiation process in order for the torus to have the sustained quantized state similar to the original.

The 'entanglement' of a torus of a given spin and a torus of an opposite spin can actually be visualized as like a stacked donut pair with either the in-bound flows at the 'pole' and the out-bound flows at the 'equator' or vice versa...

I think the relativistic mass-energy equation is the candidate formula for a TOE. Because it meets the conceptual and phylisophical requirements. And because it appears that all possible particulate constructs can also be accounted for by the values of v2/c2 in the equation's approximation series. (Although I have not yet verified this.) Presumably, the kinematic inputs should be equal to the outputs over the seed-mass value.

Regarding the application of motion, in 1920 Einstein stated:

"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Einstein essentially dropped the idea of an aether as the medium of motion and replaced it with the idea of space "endowed with physical qualities" as the medium of motion. But, to say "curvature of space" or "transformation of space" is an inappropriate fusion (and hence 'confusion') of the fundamentals in nature. The idea of the curvature or accelleration of motion is sufficient in itself and satisfies the requirements of pure kinematics. The focus need only be on motion itself as the fundamental essence involved in the transformations. There is no need to regard any motion or transformation of space...

This is among the reasons why I have proponed a rather new idea regarding the space-occupying substance and medium of motion that I also call the 'aether.' This idea of an aether is somewhat similar but rather different from the idea of the luminiferous aether in classical mechanics. My idea of an aether meets the requirements for the idea regarding space being the essence that gets occupied and the idea of a space-occupying substance/medium that mediates the occurrence of motions of whatever velocities/speeds — e.g., subluminal, luminal, and superluminal. My aether offers 'resistance' only according to and in the form of whatever underlying definitions of motions wrought in the medium — and this means that the aethereal substance is always rendered the definitions by the essence of motion. I can therefore appropriately say "motions in the aether," "waves in the aether", "curvature in the aether" but not "motion of the aether" nor "aether waves" nor "curvature of the aether"; and hence, I can appropriately say "motions of motions", "waves of motions", "curvature of motions"... This new idea of an aether as the medium of motion satisfies the technical requirements for a perfect medium because it allows all the vectors of motion — e.g., the linear motions, the curvatures of motion, the waves, the fields, the forces, etc. — to be 'imbedded' and to 'carry' without the medium itself being technically confused as an essence of motion...

I think Einstein encountered the difficulty with the idea of the aether because he argued that superluminal velocity is impossible, and also because he did not consider the averaged-zero motion (as per the null-result of the Michelson-Morley experiment) as actually an essence of motion.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 02:12 GMT
Rafael,

I share some of your reluctance about curvature. I view Sweetser's diagram as showing how 'metric' vs 'potential' is a choice of framework, essentially no different from choosing Cartesian, spherical, or cylindrical coordinates to simplify equations. For General Relativity it may make sense to choose the metric formulation of the problem, but it's still a choice of representation. And it has costs, for example General Relativity does not handle 'local mass density'. I haven't put much effort into the 'black hole' aspect in these terms.

And I agree that the self-interacting non-linear C-field vortex need not be expressed as a 'limit to curvature', since it is actually the introduction of electric charge when the vortex wall reaches the speed of light that resists the continued shrinking to an infinitely dense mass point. The C-field vortex continues to force the shrinkage and the electric charge resists the shrinkage until they balance. So expressing this as a 'limit to curvature' is more a metaphor than a physical actuality. Thanks for pointing that out.

It does seem your interpretation of m0*C^2/C^2 as mass in a 'rotational' configuration at luminal speed is somewhat compatible with my toroidal particle. Also, I have recently noted that the relativistic 'mass increase' can be expressed in terms of the C-field such that the actual mass does not change but the increase in energy occurs in the C-field circulation instead. The equations do work, and I intend to spend more time thinking about the physics of this phenomenon.

So while I doubt that we can bring our two theories into total agreement, we do have some very interesting areas of overlap. Thanks for the extensive comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author re castel replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 11:23 GMT
Eugene,

You mentioned that you "have recently noted that the relativistic 'mass increase' can be expressed in terms of the C-field such that the actual mass does not change but the increase in energy occurs in the C-field circulation instead." This is pretty much what I have been saying regarding the genesis process that is described by the relativistic equation from which the 'genesis formula' can be derived upon the application of the gra.

The relativistic equation using the 'full-tensor' factor (3-D cross) presents a yield that is twice the mass-energy increase using the 'half-tensor' Lorentz factor (2-D linear). The Lorentz factor accounts for merely the 2-D linear translation. The 'full-tensor' factor (1–v2/c2)–1 is therefore clearly the right factor because it accounts for the whole 3-D gravitational translation. This factor indicates the full condensation (densification) process.

Regarding the radiation (attenuation) process — what goes in in terms of energy inputs should logically also be what goes out. The CMBR is considered as the signature of the general cosmic radiation process; it is therefore necessary to account for the energy of the cosmic background radiation in the input-output equation.

Moreover, there is also the idea that a general mass density is maintained in the cosmos in spite of the observed cosmic expansion. This suggests the idea that new cosmic mass is also formed by the gravitational condensation process as clearly suggested by the relativistic equation that uses the 'full-tensor' factor.

These suggest the idea that the total cosmic mass-energy increase may be apportioned for both the cosmic background radiation and the cosmic mass formation — and this appears to be the case. As I mentioned, the idea of the "half going to the CMBR and half to the mass formation" is supported by the fact that the "energy comprising half of the total increase falls right smack on the energy curve of the cosmic background radiation."

Of course, (1) some gravitational systems may have the mass formation process as well as the increases in energy and (2) other systems may have merely the temporary energy increases that are radiated away when these other systems return to their normal energy state. (This latter may be the "increase in energy" that "occurs in the C-field circulation" as you put it. The C-field may actually explain the variations in the energy states of particles, e.g., such as that of the electron's.)

Thus, the increase in the energy that is radiated away and goes into the CMBR is part of the reason why we have the expansion of the observable cosmos. The other part of why we have the expansion of the observable cosmos is the increase in mass in each of the subsystems of the observable cosmos. The increase in mass increases the orbital momentum of each of the subsystems — and hence the increase in their orbits. The spiraling of the orbits of the subsystems of the cosmos is essentially the expansion of the cosmos.

The process of cosmic mass-energy increase is evidently because there is the phenomenon of gravitation. But the phenomenon of gravitation occurs because there is the concerted revolutions of all of the cosmic subsystems in an infinitely hierarchical cosmos. No hierarchical cosmos, no gravitation; no gravitation, no cosmos. The "chicken-and-egg" proposition. But it appears that that is inescapably so...

Overall — yes, debatable. But the new relativistic formulation and the interpretation I've presented indicate continuous genesis and expansion of the cosmos...

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Author re castel replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 12:38 GMT
...from which the 'genesis formula' can be derived upon the application of the gravitational acceleration for the acceleration in the change in v2...

Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 00:21 GMT
One can also imagine entanglements having a 'donut' or 'donuts' looped around the loop of a 'donut', and etc...

Bookmark and Share


Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 01:54 GMT
Hi Rafael,

On Feb 2, I posted the following on my blog site in response to Peter Jackson:

"Hi Peter, A little more detail to my earlier response:

There is a smooth homotopy between a pair of nested buckyballs and a torus. Please see:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TruncatedIcosahedron.html

On
Jan. 22, 2011 @ 16:15 GMT , I wrote the following to Steve Dufourny:

"Does the core of a Black Hole approach a singularity (I reason that a physical infinity cannot exist within a finite observable universe), or does a lattice structure prevent its full and complete collapse? IMHO, the strongest lattice with the most proper symmetries is the Carbon-60 Buckyball (once again, realize that I am talking about a lattice built up from the very fabric of Spacetime). It is true that a sphere has the perfect symmetry, but a sphere is not a lattice - there are no lattice bonds to prevent gravity from crushing and deflating a perfect sphere.

The Buckyball might explain the non-collapse of the Black Hole core, but succesive radial layers of lattices would build one Buckyball inside of another Buckyball (with flipped symmetries). After about a thousand vertices, these layered Buckyballs will begin to resemble another lattice - the very strong Diamond lattice."

Perhaps a static Black Hole does build layers of nested and flipped buckyball lattices into a distorted (distorted at the center) diamond lattice as I suggested earlier. But perhaps spinning Black Holes crush and rotate successive layered pairs of buckyballs into tori, and layers of tori. These layers of tori may behave like spin-2 Gravitons and/or WIMP-Gravitons and/or GEM-Gravitons (or would that be Gravi-Electro-Magnetons?)

Also, I discussed tori on the last page of this hard-to-find article (attached on my blog site on Feb 2):

Ray Munroe, "Symplectic tiling, hypercolour and hyperflavor E12", Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 41 (2009) 2135–2138."

If spinning Black Holes build up a lattice out of distorted (by the Black Hole spin) buckyballs, that build up nested (how nested? intertwined?) tori, what would that look like? How many dimensions are involved? I'm not sure that I can answer these questions short of a serious computer simulation...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 08:11 GMT
Ray,

I think a black hole is a singularity in the sense that you can no longer treat it strictly as a many-body system. It is no longer an aggregate of particles (or fabrics, or lattices) but is essentially a single particle. It appears that it can be disintegrated to produce many particles — for instance, Hawking particles or perhaps less massive black holes that may also disintegrate, and so on.

I have described possible configurations of kinematic entanglements — such as the image of "a 'donut' or 'donuts' looped around the loop of a 'donut', and etc..." But these seem to be inappropriate for black holes.

When I imagine a kinematic black hole I tend to see (1) a singular torus with a spin and a twirl around the torus, or (2) a stacked pair of tori with opposite (right-hand-and-left-hand) spins, and with the twirls around each torus, and with the in-bound flows at the 'pole' and the out-bound flows at the 'equator', or vice versa...

The first does not look very stable. But the second looks more stable and may be characteristic of black holes at the center of galaxies — with plausibly the relatively constant capability of feeding the galaxies with the kinematic condensates that black holes produce. Of course, if the image of the first is imposed as the basic configuration, then the second image would essentially be that of a pair of black holes, which may explain why some galaxies seem to have a pair of black holes at their centers.

In the image of a black hole, the fundamental vectors fed to the black hole can be imagined as piercing the points of a sphere's surface area out to some radii, but with eventually each vector engaging the torus at a tangent. It is therefore easier to see the image of threads, or strings, or fibers in bundles rather than the image of a fabric because the cross-knitting image is quite subtle — i.e., at the fundamental level the image of waves is no longer clear. This picture of course follows and employs the generally characteristic image of the fundamental vector that is represented by an arrow — a unidirectional line.

Thus, the 'fabric' and 'lattices' that we often like seeing gets collapsed or forged into vector bundles because of the extreme (very high-speed) conditions in black holes...

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear Rafael,

Peter Jackson has been talking about Tokamak geometry - which is fundamentally toroidal, and similar to your "image of 'a 'donut' or 'donuts' looped around the loop of a 'donut', and etc..." in the extremely symmetric limit.

You also said:

"at the fundamental level the image of waves is no longer clear".

I agree. I think that strings (and the corresponding wave behavior) are essentially "frozen" into "lattices" at the Black Hole core. I treat the vertices of these lattices like fundamental fermions, and the struts between vertices as fundamental bosons.

You also said:

"It is no longer an aggregate of particles (or fabrics, or lattices) but is essentially a single particle. It appears that it can be disintegrated to produce many particles".

Perhaps these lattices build up buckyballs (almost a perfect sphere) and/or the homotopy surface of a pair of nested buckyballs (almost a perfect torus or "donut") that behave like a single particle, but can also be viewed as an aggregate lattice of composite particles.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 08:30 GMT
Ray,

Layering appears to be a fundamental characteristic of concentric fields. So, I conditionally agree with the layering idea of a torus within a torus within a torus, and so on.

Moreover, I see symmetry breaking at the 'outer' tori for the black hole disintegration processes.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 03:53 GMT
Ray,

I just want to be clear. Although I say "at the fundamental level the image of waves is no longer clear", that is not to mean that 'tangental' vector interactions no longer occur. These interactions still occur, because otherwise there would be no curvature; and without the curvature there would be no torus that define the particulate kinematic construct. These interactions simply occur very quickly at the very short distances and high speeds involved in a black hole.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear Rafael,

I think we have different perspectives that yield pretty much the same results. Curvature might initiate with the buckyball (and/or its homotopic cousin - this "lattice-like torus"). Some sort of interaction must take place to keep these lattices pressed outwards against the crushing pressure of a gravitational near-singularity. Perhaps it is something like my proposed Weakly-Interacting-Massive-Particle-Gravity = WIMP-Gravity (in my book) which is a quantum gravity with massive intermediating tensor bosons. Or perhaps it is the repulsive Cosmological Constant in an extreme curvature limit. But this is an interaction that only has a reasonable probability of occurance in regions of large complexergy - such as a Black Hole core or the Multiverse Scale.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

p.s. - Steve - I don't consider publication to be vanity. My net income off of publications is negative, and most of the Physics Community doesn't know me. I think it is necessary to share ideas that may (or may not?) help answer these fundamental questions. We might accomplish something through the web interactions of many. I agree that the web is a powerful tool for sharing ideas, but why would you overlook similar outlets such as arXiv, viXra or an FQXi/ SciAm essay contest? And you could publish a book on the web-based Lulu.com...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steev Dufourny replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 10:56 GMT
Hi all,

Dear Rafael, sorry for your thread.

Dear Ray,

I am tired by 10 years of problems in Belgium, they cause me a bankrupcy.I am tired Ray simply and my mother also, she has a bad health.I am tired , we are tired.Why I speak on the net? because I have lost all and it's my only road to show my works.I was obliged to show my theory as that.

I have a nice revenge for my region in Belgium simply.It's the reason why I D like create my society here in Belgium, a kind of ecological lab,...but I don't know where I must go, I fear a little now, you know also the story at Paris.You know I rest isolated at home and I become crazzy.I must think about my health also, my neurologic problems make me tired.I love working the soil and plants, flowers...you know Ray in the past even without help from my country state, I formed young persons,now they work in horticulture, I am happy for them.You know I have lost in 1 day 12000 flowers, fuschias due to winter, in fact people obliged me to put them on the exterior of the green house just 1 days before the under 0 degrees celsius....When I rethought at all that,I say me ,oh my god these years were so so difficults.I have just had the excusability for this bakrupcy some months ago, after 8 years it's cool???I have no hate for these persons,but I d like show them that even after that we can create ....When I said you I am waiting you, it's true you know, you can come with FQXi friends and others from over the world,I just want work and evolve and put into practice my inventions.

At this momment, I don't know what I must do and I am tired simply,I have some bands due to all that,It's logic when you suffer during many years, sometimes I say never I have had a year quiet and happy.But it's the life, we become stronger also.

Best Ray , you are cool.ps you understand why I am isolated and I don't publish.

Your friend

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


mannaiswami wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 15:02 GMT
Hello Sir,

I found that the Ancient Indians had arrived a definite conclusion about the Cosmos. They had left that the cosmos is made out of the fixed and the integrated form of the 27 Nakshatras ( 27 Stellar Groups ) in the form of an Egg. Further they derived that the Planets inside of the Nakshatras covered Cosmos have their movements with the forces exerted from the Nakshtras which causes the Earth to have a stable position at the center of the cosmos and has its self-rotation unlike the other planets have their movements with reference to the force line generated by the Fixed Nakshatras in the Cosmos. For more details kindly log on www.swamycosmology.wordpress.com

Thank you,

With regards,

Mannaiswami

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

re castel replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 12:20 GMT
Mannaiswami,

I'll take a look at it.

You might want to take a look at this, too: Hymn of Creation from the Rig-Veda

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 17:23 GMT
Dear Mannaiswami and Rafael,

Twenty-seven is an interseting number. Lawrence Crowell and I are trying to build a TOE in 27 or 28 dimensions. Please see:

http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/viewFile/9
4/90

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

p.s. - Steve - I know that you have had a difficult life, and you cannot leave Belgium now. My grandfather died 20 years ago, and his farm (in northern Florida) hasn't been used much (its tied up in an estate with complicated legalities). I wish I had the legal right to let you experiment and work that land.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 17:40 GMT
Ray with my actual state(economic, social,health) ,I go now if I have a concrete proposition,I just need quiet a little ,It's nice in all case for your farm,never I will forget that and an other thing that only you knows,don't forget Ray if I live several years still, I will help you or always I will be there for all things,.when this center will be created, there will be a place for you,you know it's an international center and not my center, it's the ideas of several which become relevant, alone we are nothing Ray, without parano of course,I am parano, and tired Ray, I am blocked here in Belgium and the actual systems are a pure joke, I become really crazzy, I rest for my mother who is very tired also.Ican't even create a society.I destroy my health in my own home ,isolated with my theory as my last chance, it's all my life DrCosmic Ray,I become crazzy, I think I am going to go as that, with my guitar if that continues, really, I don't know where, I have no monney, Nothing. I am going to go in India, I don't know, I have no solutions frankly at this momment.I hesitate between USA and India and Africa in fact, in fact I d like create it here but it's difficult with the politicians.I just want continue to learn and improve my theory with friends and good people,universal and humanistic.I d like learn still and still ,it's the only thing who is important for me, continue to learn.I need to learn more, I am frustrated there really.I d like test also my inventions and models with a beautiful team.Imagine Ray a big ecosystem, improved and the center in the middle encercled by the matters, vegetals.....you imagine this sciences center, we shall produce so many things for the well of humanity, the scientists must act together Ray, the hour is serious.Really.

Regards,thanking you

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 11:26 GMT
Eugene,

You said "The equations do work, and I intend to spend more time thinking about the physics of this phenomenon."

Perhaps you might consider visiting this webpage. The discussions on the new relativistic mass equation is not complicated at all; it's even simpler than Einstein's 1905 paper. It would be lovely if you (and the other readers) can give me a feedback regarding the genesis formula.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 21:28 GMT
Rafael,

Just to be sure that you understand, the equations I was referring to are the relativistic equations in which the momentum is expressed in terms of the C-field.

In the referenced link you state: "I could have tried discussing the ideas presented here and in the ebook in terms of the technical language and mathematical discoveries familiar to those who embrace the older conventions. However, that would have demanded too many years of in-depth research for me to gain a mastery of and a convincing or acceptable reputation regarding the said conventions." [but] "There are numerous experts who have the mastery of the already 'established' technical language and mathematical discoveries."

Unfortunately, that is asking someone else to do your work for you.

My belief, reinforced by my fqxi experiences, is that there are basically two classes of physicists; those who work with the accepted ideas, and those who have their own theories (or ax to grind). Neither of these is very likely to spend much time pursuing the task of proving your idea. I would love to be able to give you more encouragement along these lines, but I just don't see it.

Nevertheless, miracles happen, so I wish you the best in this regard.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 06:22 GMT
Eugene,

The reason why I referred you to my webpage is because I saw that your C-field equations were relativistic and I perceived that somehow some of our ideas 'correlate'.

Compared to what I've read here, your essay presents more of the physics because you describe 'dynamical' and/or 'mechanical' systems that are basically about motion.

I am of what I call the old-school; I think "physics is about motion." When people claim they are talking physics but deal-out confused geometrics and kinematics or simply insist on the geometrics instead of the kinematics, I do not expect coherent explanations of the physics from them -- until of course they clearly admit that their simplices and complexes are descriptions of motions according to the old-school physics.

You've described somewhat the 'composition' and 'decomposition' of motion vectors; you've described what I call 'motion constructs'; and I find it interesting.

You say that "Physics is a discipline that is approximately based on" your "Analog In...Digital Out" diagram. That is also interesting.

The evolution of Physics has certainly brought us again on the verge of the metaphysics when John Archibald Wheeler started what he called the "it from the bit". And all the discussions about "information entropy," "information lost in black holes," "holographic principle," "psychophysical views," and etc., exemplify the present trend.

I think this trend is the logical step from where human generalizations regarding nature started. We've gone through (1) the "earth, wind, water and fire", (2) the classical "laws of motion", (3) the atomic theory and the table of "atomic elements", and now the struggle to identify (4) the table of quantum "fundamental particles." The logical next step, as indicated by the present trend, is to identify how the abstracts (information) are generated. So, your "analog in and digital out" idea is fairly in-keeping with the trend.

My prediction is that we will eventually return to the idea that physics is about motion. And we will eventually have the generalizations regarding how "information" is generated in unison with the "transformations of motion." I of course allude to the psychophysical (the mind and the natural), or, more appropriately, the psychosomatic (the mind and the body). In the end it is all about the physical (the natural), which includes both the physics and the metaphysics (i.e., not that which is beyond the physics, but that which is of the higher physics, the supernatural).

I believe that our physics will never get near the comprehensive idea regarding the whole existence unless our physics will begin to see that it is mainly about the transformations of motion, and that the motion transformations are in unison with the duration transformation and the abstractions of the mind - the phenomena in unison with the noumena.

I have pointed out the idea of motion transformations, as opposed to the idea of space-and-time transformations. I've pointed out that mass and energy are motion constructs. I've also pointed out that the cosmos must necessarily be hierarchical in order to have the gravitational vectors. And I've pointed out that the cosmos has the three-dimensional acceleration according to a relative view of the essence of gravitation; I've derived the genesis formula. And I have put forth my interpretations of the formula according to the idea of motion transformations. Basically, I am saying that there is continuous 'formation' or 'creation' of 'observable' mass-energy into the cosmos from out of the voidness of chaos.

There are people who have proponed the idea of a 'continuous' cosmic mass formation - e.g., Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, Jayant Narlikar, and more recently Garth Barber. However, Their arguments are not as clear without the genesis formula and they have not gone down to the most fundamental level. Whereas, I have identified the fundamentals (i.e., the time dimension, instance, duration, space dimension, substance, motion) and I have pointed out that physics is mainly about the motion transformations.

It is difficult to see how my ideas could get into the mainstream discussions. I do this theoreticals pretty much as a 'sideline' and not as a 'profession' according to the popular counter-intuition (you know, the intuition for where the cash register is). Perhaps this FQXi would be able to get it into the mainstream discussions. But that remains to be seen...

You say: "Physics should never accept anything outside 'time and space', such as: God, a mathematical universe, a multiverse, laws of physics, more than 4 dimensions.

You are quite right in a roundabout way. God must necessarily be in physics (nature); this idea is evidently why the Semitic (of Shem), the Hebrew (Abraham who is of Eber's lineage), and the Judeo-Christian (of Judah and of Christ) traditions claim that God is 'in heaven', and why they are taught to pray to "God, who art in heaven,..." and "God, our Father in heaven,..." Why pray to God in heaven if God is not in heaven? Huh? God must necessarily be part of of nature; He is actually considered supernatural, and in that sense, super natural. Those who tell us that God is beyond the cosmos, beyond the universe, obviously do not tell us the truth according to the holy scriptures and the honest traditions.

As for the "mathematical universe, a multiverse, laws of physics, and more than 4 dimensions" that you negatively mentioned. I gotta say I understand what people mean when they say these things, albeit there is the trouble that they probably do not understand what they mean and do not know how 'what they say' are understood. You and I are not immune to this,.. from certain perspectives.

You say: "Unfortunately, that is asking someone else to do your work for you."

I agree. But it would be fortunate if someone did. LOL. After all, I have pretty much pointed out what appears to be the fruitful avenue (the idea of motion transformations) and, essentially, the grand conclusions (the idea of an infinitely hierarchical cosmos wherein continuous genesis occurs). The math I've put forth looks really simple; but more often the truth can be that simple.

You also say : "I would love to be able to give you more encouragement along these lines, but I just don't see it... Nevertheless, miracles happen, so I wish you the best in this regard."

That is a lovely double-entendre. LOL. But, as you say miracles do happen - perhaps I will have the mental capacity to accommodate whatever this is regarding... LOL.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 20:32 GMT
Rafael,

I meant no double-entendre, simply that one should never give up hope or stop working toward a goal. And even for those who attempt to formulate their theories in 'approved' mathematical frameworks, there's no end of resistance from others, so it will be much harder to try to bypass this stage of theory development.

Also, as I'm sure you recognize, I was not arguing against God, only stating the fact that physics must not be based on God, or on otherworldly concepts that are outside the realm of measurement and observation.

I am generally favorable to your concepts of motion and transformations of motion. I am not as favorable to the 'continuous creation' model of Hoyle, etc. This is because I have my own model of particle creation which works well and predicts the specific particles that we find around us.

I'm somewhat confused about your discussion of information. My belief is that information is not a physical entity, but a descriptive entity that must be interpreted. Wheeler's 'it form bit' is poetic, but not predictive. My first diagram simply illustrates how physics, as a descriptive science, begins with measurement numbers and ends up with theories. The physics information that is the basis of the theories is not composed of matter, charge, spin, or motion.

I encourage you to continue development of your ideas.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 01:22 GMT
Eugene,

You say: "The physics information that is the basis of the theories is not composed of matter, charge, spin, or motion."

You have Kant in you — which is good. I too have Kant in me.

I think my merging of the ideas of the corporeal and the abstract brought the confusion. My apologies. But you must have noted, I've forwarded the categorizations into the phenomena and the noumena - information which is abstract belongs to the noumena.

The confusion is in my use of the word "physics" = "nature". In common convention, "nature" often means just the phenomena (i.e., space, substance, motion, the corporeal). But sometimes it is meant to also include the noumena (i.e., time, instance, duration, the abstract).

From www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/420847/noumenon we have:

"Noumenon, plural Noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon — the thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man’s speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to the noumenon. Man, however, is not altogether excluded from the noumenal because practical reason — i.e., the capacity for acting as a moral agent — makes no sense unless a noumenal world is postulated in which freedom, God, and immortality abide.

The relationship of noumenon to phenomenon in Kant’s philosophy has engaged philosophers for nearly two centuries, and some have judged his passages on these topics to be irreconcilable. Kant’s immediate successors in German Idealism in fact rejected the noumenal as having no existence for man’s intelligence. Kant, however, felt that he had precluded this rejection by his refutation of Idealism, and he persisted in defending the absolute reality of the noumenal, arguing that the phenomenal world is an expression of power and that the source from which this power comes can only be the noumenal world beyond."

As you may see, Immanuel Kant and Emmanuel Castel have somewhat the same notions regarding "the thing" and "the thing-in-itself".

Your last post makes a lot of things quite clear. Thank you very much.

Good luck to you in the essay contest.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share



re castel wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 04:29 GMT
Wheeler's is not much different from Kant's...

Wheeler: It from bit. Otherwise put, every 'it'—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes—no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 10:41 GMT
Eugene,

I apologized that I didn't know who you were. I just learned.

I don't have any of the books you've written and I haven't read any of your books. But I've had glimpses of the titles of your books and some of the reviews.

I've just been reading some of your other papers.

In your FQXi essay, "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness," you conclude:

"What is ultimately impossible is to explain gravity and consciousness; the essence of G and C (self-attraction, self-awareness, and ability to act) will forever remain mysterious. This defines the ultimate possibility of physics."

My own view is that gravity and consciousness can be explained by describing how these processes proceed and by presenting the fundamental essences as their fundamental cause. It is the fundamental existence (or as you say "the essence") of the fundamental essences that cannot be explained as to their cause and which will forever remain a mystery. The fundamental existence exists and that is that. There is no origin more fundamental than the existence of the fundamental essences. I think even God and all the gods have no idea regarding the origin of the fundamental existence.

Considering what you have done so far, I am wondering why you haven't gotten to (This is of course a presumption.) the fundamental idea of a kinematic field -- the fundamental field of motions -- that encompasses all other fields.

Also, I don't see any articulation in your latest work that shows that you have gotten to the fundamental idea that a vector of motion is the fundamental "intelligence", the fundamental intelligent entity with the input-process-output (IPO) capability. The fundamental motion that can be represented by a vector is the most fundamental form of intelligence.

The essence of fundamental intelligence is in the essence of fundamental motion -- i.e., the fundamental motions are the "inputs", the fundamentally resolving kinematic interaction is the fundamental "process", and the essence of the resolved vector is the fundamental "output".

The chaotic or 'raw' motion in the void is relatively undefined while cosmic or 'organized' motion is defined and observable. And yet there is intelligence in both. I see that the G-field is relatively raw. But the C-field is more organized -- and more 'self-conscious'.

I see that self-conscious intelligence requires the existence of the kinematic construct that essentially cycles onto itself -- especially the particulate kinematic configurations, up to the level of the atomic and molecular configurations and the life-forms we are familiar with.

The suggestion regarding the psychosomatic reality is that the mental abstractions are always in unison with the kinematic interactions. There is no mind without the appropriate embodiment. Every embodiment has the IPO capability. Considering who you are, I am inclined to think that you agree with my IPO definition of the nature of 'intelligence'.

-

I have an impression from the title of your book, "The Atheist and the God Particle" -- although I haven't read it and I don't know if you are an atheist.

I find the belief in God the most logical and rational option -- to me the proof in the words and the numbers make this option the best.

I've derived and interpreted only the genesis formula. I don't have any created particles to back it up. But I have faith in the genesis formula. I find it convincing for myself because it is another supporting evidence that tells me that the superlative ideas regarding 'the creation' are true.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 03:10 GMT
Rafael,

I have been so busy trying to read new papers that I failed to notice your comments addressed to me.

I appreciate your remarks. I too, am much a 'Kant'-man. I will try to reply to some of the points that you brought up.

First, my essay makes no stand for or against God, it simply points out that since physicists cannot 'measure' God, in the sense of my first diagram that shows how measurements lead to theories, then God does not belong in physics theories. That is meta-physics.

You say: "I have an impression from the title of your book, "The Atheist and the God Particle" -- although I haven't read it and I don't know if you are an atheist."

You might be surprised at the contents of that book. Don't judge a book by the cover.

Finally, because you base everything on motion, I would like to point out the following: The C-field is the gravity 'analog' of the magnetic field, meaning simply that it is analogous to magnetism in some ways. It is not 'identical' to magnetism, nor is it related to magnetism. The name is a blessing and a curse. For those familiar with magnetism, there are many things that can immediately be understood about the C-field. But the name appears to confuse many people who only hear 'magnetism' and draw the wrong conclusion.

My point is: there is no 'magnetism' without moving charge [or changing electric field] and analogously, there is no C-field without moving mass [or changing gravity field].

So there is no C-field without motion! If one attributes the properties of awareness and free will to the C-field, then this may or may not be what you are speaking of when you discuss "the fundamental idea that a vector of motion is the fundamental 'intelligence'."

You also state: "I see that the G-field is relatively raw. But the C-field is more organized -- and more 'self-conscious'. [and] I see that self-conscious intelligence requires the existence of the kinematic construct that essentially cycles onto itself -- especially the particulate kinematic configurations, up to the level of the atomic and molecular configurations and the life-forms we are familiar with." Rafael, that is not far from my understanding.

Thanks for the comments and clarifications.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 05:56 GMT
I posted the following at Peter Jackson's thread. I thought it would be a good idea having it here also...

-

Hello Peter,

I've been discussing with Edwin Klingman (in my thread) a few things on the idea of cosmic mass-energy genesis and the idea of motion transformations instead of spacetime transformations. Your essay was mentioned.

My understanding is that in your view black holes recycle mass and energy. This is an interesting idea to me because that is part of my own view.

I have however the extended idea that black holes are actually involved in the 'creation' of new 'cosmic' mass-energy out of the fundamental and infinite 'chaotic' mass-energy reservoir. My idea is that basically the 'chaotic' null energy in the void 'flow' into the gravitational systems and are transformed into 'cosmic' densified mass-energy that get fissioned and stabilized in the domain of the cosmic observables, or that get radiated and attenuated back into the domain of the chaotic void. The overall process is biased towards the increasing cosmic mass-energy domains as time passes.

My idea is that we have the 'super thin' 'dark void' at one extreme end and the 'super dense' 'black holes' at the other extreme end, with both characterized as having the invisible 'dark' or 'black' motions; while in-between we have the variegated visible or observable quantized motion constructs.

My propositions are based mainly on the idea that 'motion' is the basic component or essence of all the phenomena within space. Everything that we see or touch is of the essence of motion - i.e., particles and waves are all constructs of motion.

I have held back quite a bit on my ideas. But I hope you will read my essay and give it a rating, too.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 06:04 GMT
To further clarfiy my ideas...

I think black holes not only recycle matter that are already cosmic but they are also the main gravitational domains that 'create' new 'cosmic' mass-energy out of the infinite reservoir of motion that is manifested by the gravitational field.

In my essay, I presented the genesis formula that shows the relative three-dimensional translation of gravitational masses such as black holes.

The genesis formula clarifies the idea of motion transformations instead of the popular space-time transformations. The genesis formula illustrates the cosmic mass formation process and accounts for the CMBR.

It appears that no one else ever presented the idea of motion transformations and so it appears I am the originator of the idea. There was the classical velocity transformation idea. But my interpretation of mass-formation on account of the motion transformation effected by the three-dimensional gravitation process is original. (Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar, Barber, and the other self-creation cosmologists are not clear on the idea of motion transformations.)

I've sent letters to several people since the 1990s regarding this. But it has not been considered seriously. I am hoping that FQXi will be a catalyst towards the deeper investigation of the idea.

In relation to the essay contest, my idea is that the time dimension, space dimension, the instance of existence, and the substance of existence are each a continuum. In my view it is duration and motion that gets quantized.

I find the quantization of motion a more logical and rational idea. The idea of space-time transformations is too cluttered and too confusing to 'common sense' people.

To say that "things gravitate because there is the fundamental flow or motion towards gravitational centers" is easier to understand than to say that "things gravitate because of curved space around gravitational centers."

To say that the fundamental essence of mass and of energy is 'motion' is to me the most logical and rational. It is an especially simple and markedly fundamental view.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 13:54 GMT
Rafael

An exceptional essay, and very valid, even brilliant, conceptual approach to describing how relativity really works. You say "it may be some time before...." my estimate was 2020, but I'm now feeling there may be more intelligent life around than I'd feared. (certainly I now hope you'll agree with 10-10). My view is that if we initially accentuate the consistencies with SR/GR rather than the inconsistencies it may be more palatable. You may be one of the few to understand this, quite simple, transformation video; http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.h
tm

Or a geometrical key is that Cartesian co-ordinates must be attached to a "body" as Einstein specified, as points and lines are only abstractions, and geometry cannot validly include motion.

You'll also be interested in Robert S's equivalent but entirely apriory proof of a = g.

One of my earlier papers clearly identified where and how physics all went so wrong (although parts can also be traced back to Young); http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

In my expose of the 'One Particle State' an ion does it all, and is effectively a graviton, but more simply than envisaged. It has inertial mass, so also gravity. It hangs around with mates as plasma, in gangs roaming around, of density and excitement proportional to speed through the condensate. (It is the dark matter hampering the search for 'dark matter' at the LHC). When light arrives it slows it all down or speeds it all up to the new LOCAL 'c', so both E and 'c' = f x lambda.

We already know plasma is 99+% of the Universe. Space time curvature is diffraction (sorry Arthur E), and if the moon sped up it really would exert more gravity on us! (mass equivalence). Most importantly, the plasma ions act as the boundary to implement your change of 'motion' between discrete inertial 'fields.'

The reason the Troglodytes still rule is that us knights in shining armour who have seen over their heads, only roam as individuals, believing we are few. Things are changing! As Robert says, we must stick together, and protect the child who points out the Kings new clothes were only myth! If we do so all who can think may flock to join us.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 16:25 GMT
Peter,

Your post is very encouraging. Thank you.

You are right about the need for emphasis on "the consistencies with SR/GR." There is a need to restudy the fundamentals for the better interpretations of SR/GR. I think the new interpretations will be more meaningful and precise once the fundamental premises are clarified.

I like Vesselin Petkov's ideas on the fundamentals that he discusses in his essay.

I've been studying E Eugene Klingman's "GEM and the Constant Speed of Light" - downloaded from his website. I find his ideas and your ideas very interesting. I have reservations regarding certain ideas that still have residuals of the space-time transformations idea. But I think you both understand that I have quite completely embraced the idea of motion transformations.

I am working on a new unified theory. This new theory is based on the idea of kinematic relativity. You'll find me if you google "kinematic relativity".

My unified theory propones the idea of synthesized kinematic discrete fields (quantum particles) 'immersed' in an all-encompassing fundamental kinematic continuum field (a null or void kinematic field). The idea is basically that of the discrete cosmos (the ordered or organized kinematic fields) immersed in the void chaos (the unordered or unorganized kinematic field).

I am still working on the details of the synthesis and stabilization of the quantum particles and also on the details of why gravitation occurs.

I am very interested in Eugene's work because of parallels in our work. I still do not see how his formulations could output the values that I expect for the 'three-dimensional' motion transformation process. But the picture of kinematic 'donuts' along C-field cylinders that I see from his work agrees with some of my ideas.

My unified theory requires that half of the energy drawn from the fundamental kinematic continuum gets radiated for the CMBR and half gets stabilized as the quantum particles that compose the 'many-body' components of the cosmos.

I've used a = g and assumed MKS in my formulations; and I found that the half of the total energy increase is consistent with the CMBR curve. I expect that the total cosmic mass-energy increases will be consistent with the rate of cosmic expansion.

Yes, perhaps we'll have better than your 2020 estimate. Any place in the essay contest for each of us should improve the prospects. I hope I get your vote, too.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 11:17 GMT
Rafael

You certainly do. But please explain MKS. I think our work is closely parallel. I also think if you understand mine properly and just pick a couple of key bits to share from it yours will suddenly all prove empirically falsifiable. I have already done that to an extent with yours by focussing on the a = g aspect, which had emerged via the mechanism but was lying to one side. I hope we can enrich each others work.

If you have time to read it carefully please tell me if you can get your head round the logical derivation f unified SR GR an QM from the explanation in my essay.

Best wishes

peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 17:04 GMT
Peter,

Please let me correct my statement. It should be:

"I've used a = g and MKS in my formulations."

The MKS is simply the standard metric system of measurement. The a is the acceleration applied on the seed mass mo for the 3D relative translation. The g is the gravitational acceleration equal to G[mo/r2], where G is the gravitational constant.

Assuming 1 kg for a 'dipstick' value in the genesis formula, the resulting total energy increase is 4.4515584 x 10-21.

Half of this total energy increase is on the high energy end of the CMBR curve. The CMBR value is adjustable depending on local mass densities and rates of expansion. The prevalent measurable energy on the CMBR should be according to the general rate of cosmic expansion.

Would you say this claim is 'falsifiable'?

Best wishes to you, too.

Rafael

P.S. I wonder what the others might say about the above - especially Butler, Klingman, Petkov, Biermans and Benedict...

Bookmark and Share


Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 17:41 GMT
Dear Rafael,

And if you use the electron rest mass of 9.11x10^(-31) kg as your "dipstick", then your energy increase is 4x10^(-51), which is a reasonable coupling factor (~10^-10 because Earth's gravitational field is relatively weak) times the inverse of Dirac's Large Number of 10^-41, and is in no way related to the inverse of Klingman's large number of 10^-61 (which would require an unreasonably large non-linear coupling factor of 10^10 in Earth's weak gravitational field).

Sorry, Ed - I like you, but I think you missed the mark with 10^61. Rather than (10^61)^(-2) ~ 10^(-123), it should be (10^41)^(-3) ~ 10^(-123). I think that this correction elliminates some of your declared agreement with experimental data, but it does not destroy your fundamental GEM-like idea.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author re castel replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 18:19 GMT
Dear Ray,

It actually appears that it does not matter so much what realistic mass value is plugged-in. It appears that half of the total energy increase will always fall on the CMBR curve, and perhaps more so if the correct rate of expansion is considered.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 17:51 GMT
Peter,

Moreover, you said "If you have time to read it carefully please tell me if you can get your head round the logical derivation f unified SR GR an QM from the explanation in my essay."

I've read your essay. However, I do not think that the conventional ideas regarding SR and GR can be unified with the conventional ideas regarding QM, even with the extraordinary ideas you've added.

I have my own interpretations of the SR, GR and QM ideas. I've winnowed out a lot from these ideas and have come up with the idea of kinematic relativity which is centered on the idea of the transformations of motion.

The idea of kinematic relativity allows a unification of relevant SR, GR and QM ideas in terms of the transformations of motion. My genesis formula describes a KR process that involves the gravitation process and a bit of the quantum process.

However, I have not yet given a clear description of the general quantum process based on the KR principles. But I am on the idea that an hierarchical cosmos is necessary for both the quantum and the gravitational processes, and such that I can see the unification in the idea of kinematic relativity.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Rafael,

I apologize for using your thread to respond to my friend Ray, but it is the scene of the crime and therefore appropriate:

Dear Ray,

I am finding it difficult to read all 170 or so essays and the thousand or more comments, so it took me a while to become aware of your 'drive by shooting' in which you state the following:

"And if you use the electron rest...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 16:37 GMT
Hi Ed,

I didn't intend for it to sound like a "drive by shooting". Rafael said "P.S. I wonder what the others might say about the above - especially Butler, Klingman, Petkov, Biermans and Benedict..." and I thought that my comment "fit" in the conversation.

Yes - Energy is proportinal to the square of the Amplitude.

Dirac wrote at least a couple of papers about his Large Number "Numerology" Cosmology. It has been a while since I read either, but I think that his argument has about as much basis as does Dark Energy. Dirac's first approach at a Cosmology based on his Large Number didn't exactly pan out, but Dirac didn't know that Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" was ~10^-123 which is the inverse cube of Dirac's Large Number ~10^41. I attribute this coincidence to the geometry of 3 spatial dimensions, rather than the square of an amplitude. Maybe my interpretation is wrong, maybe your interpretation is wrong, maybe the truth is a combination of effects that we have both modelled incorrectly. As you know, I have a completely different interpretation of "Dark Energy" with the Variable Coupling Theory in my book.

I am not opposed to a "C" field (I am convinced that other fields must exist, and that gravity must be more complex), but I suspect that it is very weak in this scale, and is therefore, most important at a larger scale. Unfortunately this implies a Multiverse, and I understand your objections against including God or a Multiverse in our Physics. If I am allowed to explain one point in terms of God or a Multiverse, then I can probably explain all points using similar arguments.

I don't claim to be a prophet who knows all of the answers, but I think that this part of our ideas is at conflict.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 17:22 GMT
Ray,

Thanks for responding here and on my thread.

You say: "I attribute this coincidence to the geometry of 3 spatial dimensions, rather than the square of an amplitude."

I interpret this to mean "three degrees of freedom". For example Boltzmann's constant is multiplied by 3 for three degrees of freedom:

1/2 mv^2 = (3/2)kT

This is quite different from assuming that 3 spatial dimensions implies a cube root.

Is this what you're saying?

And Ray, the "drive by shooting" was tongue in cheek. I am not upset that you posted a remark where you considered it appropriate at the time, but I would like to have a 'heads up' so I can respond. I do think this 'Fly-by' physics is important validation as I derived the physics long before I had the measured values to compare to.

Of course either of our interpretations may be wrong.

Having fun!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 20:55 GMT
Dear Eugene,

There seems to be the unclarified matter regarding the premise of the C-field's strength that Ray is contesting.

You've stated that "the C-field depends on local mass density ... and this can explain variation in the scale of a." This apparently implies that the accelerations of the objects are affected by local mass densities - including the mass of the objects that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 00:32 GMT
Dear Rafael,

Thanks for studying my essay sufficiently to ask good questions. I'll attempt to answer them.

We seem to have no disagreements upon the relevance of 'local mass density', which, by the way, General Relativity cannot deal with.

You are correct that I begin with a single field. But my only assumption at the beginning is that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 02:16 GMT
Dear Eugene,

I said:

[ In comparison, I see an all-encompassing kinematic field, infinite in time and space, comprising a hierarchical (discrete) kinematic 'cosmos' immersed in a smoothly void (analog) kinematic 'chaos'. I see a kinematic field wherein the cosmic subsystems multiply according to a generally continuous cosmic mass-energy formation process.

I assume that the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 04:52 GMT
Eugene,

Just a slight correction, it should read:

"You seem to argue that there was the ANALOG field first - your word is 'primordial'."

-

You say - "You are correct that I begin with a single field. But my only assumption at the beginning is that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE EXISTS." The suggestion is that the universe came to exist only after something happened to the analog field - "quantum conditions carve up the continuum" (you imply) into black holes, galaxies and their components, etc.

I say - "My idea is that the universe never "came to be". It has always been here. All we have to discover is how it is the way it has always been and how it 'evolves' and 'grows'." There is, continually, the genesis of new parts - e.g., new black holes, new galaxies and their grown or multiplied components, etc. - that the already existing and evolving kinematic quantum conditions generate from the kinematic continuum.

This is where we have the big difference in our opinions.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 21:25 GMT
Rafael,

Neither "makes sense" to me: that the universe should either 1) come into being, or 2) always have existed.

Nevertheless, the problem, as I stated, is that of producing all of the known particles (without producing anything else!). And having already 'discovered' a reasonable explanation for how the universe 'evolves' and 'grows' in my model, I'm not looking very hard for a model that I believe won't work. In fact, I don't think this will be possible without a 'big bang' as source of energy, but of course you're welcome to try.

But if I understand your above remark, you are willing to assume that the universe "with all the pieces" just "is". I personally find that very unaesthetic and would have no interest in such a model.

But the beauty of fqxi is that they encourage all attempts.

Happy hunting,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 22:38 GMT
Rafael,

My response above was to the immediately preceding comment. After posting I noticed your longer comment before that. But basically, nothing changes. Of course black holes should contain sufficient energy for the C-field to produce particles, but that doesn't explain how the black holes got here without particles. So there's a circularity of logic that I find unappealing.

It's hard to separate our philosophical positions from our physical theories, and philosophically I am devoted to a 'unitary' conception that requires me to begin with 'one thing', not 'the ten thousand things' as the Zen Buddhists say.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 13:57 GMT
Dear Eugene and everyone,

I think I must clarify a little bit more.

When I say that the universe has always been here, what I mean is that an infinite cosmos with the pattern or structure wherein we have the galaxies, the clusters of galaxies, the clusters of clusters of galaxies, and etc., always existed. And I believe the infinite cosmos 'evolves' and 'grows' both in the sense...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author re castel wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 23:50 GMT
Ray,

I'd like to know how you fit the idea of self-similarity at the level of the galaxies. I'd like to know what components you see at that scale and what you don't see and where they should be located 'physically'.

How does your scales look like for the effective local values for the gravitational "constant" that can be 'attached' to the various masses in a galaxy? What do you see in terms of the outputs with the gravity fields as inputs?

Also, it would be nice if you can comment regarding the Jordan frame and the Einstein frame in the light of my genesis formula - I am not sure how they may relate according to the conventions.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share


Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 15:27 GMT
Dear Rafael,

I left most of this on my blog site, but added a p.s. for yours:

Laurent Nottale predicts at least one scale of greater complexergy than ours. My analysis of fundamental particle spins (including spin-3/2 gravitinos and spin-2 gravitons) leads me to think that there may be at least two sclaes of greater complexergy than ours.

Within our Observable Universe, there is some interesting structure, such as Superclusters. Are Superclusters part of our Classical Scale, or are they part of a larger scale that we can observe (just like the Quantum scale is a smaller scale that we can observe)? I haven't given this possible scale-level as much thought as it probably deserves, but my friend Len Malinowski has. Max Tegmark is working along similar lines.

At the top scale, we have the Multiverse. It is (near?) infinite in space and time, always has existed, always will exist, and each Observable Universe is a fragment of fractal dust within its composition. Perhaps this fits into Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation, but the "many-worlds" have always existed - we don't need new Big Bangs to provide those alternate worlds/ realities/ possibilities.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

p.s. - This paper addresses some of these scale ideas. See Equation 5 and Table 3. Regarding scales, think of Dr. Seuss' "Horton Hears a Who!"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 15:49 GMT
Rafael

I agree my SR and GR from a Quantum Mechanism does't follow the 'conventional' understanding of SR/GR. In fact all 3 are slightly refurbished.

As an Architect I don't have the luxury (for long) of settling for maybe's. I have to use intense conceptualisation and logical analysis, then design, test and finally detail and specify something from foundations up to actually build. A real, man made environment. So that's what I've done.

You say; "I have my own interpretations of the SR, GR and QM ideas. I've winnowed out a lot from these ideas and have come up with the idea of kinematic relativity which is centered on the idea of the transformations of motion."

and; "The idea of kinematic relativity allows a unification of relevant SR, GR and QM ideas in terms of the transformations of motion. My genesis formula describes a KR process that involves the gravitation process and a bit of the quantum process."

However, I have not yet given a clear description of the general quantum process based on the KR principles. But I am on the idea that an hierarchical cosmos is necessary for both the quantum and the gravitational processes, and such that I can see the unification in the idea of kinematic relativity."

OK. Here is a quantum process to test. I've actually built stuff from it so know it works; Particles condense from the (limited compressibility) condensate around (the em field of) things that move. These have the jobs of;

1. Relieving the condensate (Edwins) of it's locally compressed (dark) energy.

2. Oscillating, so it (kinematically) keeps em wave speed at the new local 'c' via wave particle interaction (Stokes scattering).

3. Slowing and bending the light (diffraction) in accordance with the lighthouse keepers instructions (Fresnels 'n'), via scattering/ PMD /Regaza delay.

4. Playing at being 'mass' (well it actually is), for the purposes of gravity and equivalence (with inertial mass).

5. Getting together to make people, sunshine and environments.

It defines the limits and boundary zones of 'inertial frames', which are just as Einstein described them. (but the Lorentz transformation curve (actually originally Fresnels)is essentially only about energy requirement for acceleration).

Conceptually this overcomes the whole reason for SR in the first place by allowing constant speed of light for all observers without banishing fields.

I agree you are in a similar place, along with Edwin and a number of others, and we should all get Nobel prizes (can you pick up mine while you're there) and be sent to asylums for our stupidity in running the gauntlet of calls of crackpot and finger pointing. That Japanese 'pain game' show would be fun wouldn't it!

I've just realised I hadn't rated yours! one well deserved 10 coming up sir. (do check you gave me what you think mine's worth).

Very best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 00:32 GMT
Pete,

I already did a while back. Must be why you, Eugene and Ray, among others, are high up in the community ratings. :)

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 21:48 GMT
Rafel,

I wait until I have reviewed most of the essays before rating them. I have now done so, and have helped you climb the ladder as you should. Thank you for your early support.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 03:24 GMT
Eugene,

Thank you also for the support.

I have been most impressed by your C-field idea. I think your C-field idea details Hawking's idea of the particles produced by black holes. The beauty of your work is that you present it in a more graphical way whereas Hawking was more abstract. And, from my viewpoint, the particles from black holes support my theory regarding motion constructs.

Thanks again and best wishes!

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 15:21 GMT
Rafael

Thanks. It's interesting that if motion is compressed for quantisation then it's conceptually a type of shortfall of motion around the quanta that implements the gravitational 'force'. I wonder if the condensate is colder near matter?

You may enjoy and support Constantinos Regaza consistent essay, (if you haven't yet) using maths in the way I feel it should be used (having abandoned it myself!) with logic to retain it's link with reality.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 14:41 GMT
Pete,

You say: "It's interesting that if motion is compressed for quantisation then it's conceptually a type of shortfall of motion around the quanta that implements the gravitational 'force'. I wonder if the condensate is colder near matter?"

I think your question was debated upon by leading theorists sometime back in terms of the thermodynamics of black holes - at the black hole event horizon specifically. Heat is related to the random, expansive motion of particles (the so-called Brownian motion, the motion of particles). My understanding is that it is the expansive motion of the particles that gives the sensation of heat. If a black hole is a single particulate motion construct and its effects on particles at the horizon is concentric (not expansive), then a black hole may be as cold as it gets - except perhaps at the poles where the motions are expansive and where the 'common' quantum particles are likely formed - I think this is the reason why there are the observed polar jets.

Yes. It can be viewed as "conceptually a type of shortfall of motion around the quanta that implements the gravitational 'force'." I actually thought about gravitation merely this way before because the em linear translation is shorter than the rotational translation with the indefinite value of pi - thus, motion gets stretched and creates a vacuum when rotated. However, from the viewpoint of pure kineamtics, the process of gravitation involves more than just this 'shortfall' - and this has actually brought me to my conclusion that there has got to be a hierarchical cosmos in order for the process of gravitation to occur.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 15:21 GMT
Pete,

The polar jets appear to be intermitent/periodic. So, the thermodynamics should also be rhythmic. It gets hot when the black hole spits em wave and particle radiations. This is to the outside observers of course.

I am not sure if observers gone inside feel the heat once inside, since it looks like the motion constructs that used to be the intelligent observers actually get shredded and melted into the black hole. It looks like there is no way we can know about the fate of any intelligent observer gone in - notwithstanding the suggestion of info that may possibly get out of the black hole on account of the particles (formed out of the motions that went in) that get spewed out by the black hole. The new particles formed and spewed out appear to be clean slates in terms of historical info - except for the fact that the new particles are made out of the motion constructs gone into the black hole and therein shredded.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 21:50 GMT
As I have stated in my essay "the picture of a kinematic universe appears to be the more clearly logical and rational than the space-time universe picture." Kinematic relativity describes a universe of quantized motions. Quantized motions define the mass and energy components of the universe. (And this answers the core question in the essay contest.)

The idea of kinematic relativity is simply the transformations of motion - the dynamics of motion itself. This is in contrast with the idea of spacetime relativity that propones the strange idea of the transformations of spacetime - the dynamics of spacetime, instead of the idea of the transformations of motion within the space dimension and along the time dimension.

The truth in the assertion of kinematic relativity (rather than the assertion of spacetime relativity) may only be understood upon the proper consideration of the fundamental idea of pure kinematics -- the fundamental idea of the motion of motions suggested by the Pythagorean idea and clarified in the fundamental motion transformation equations. But it appears that very few understand the suggestion and the clarification.

Judging from the community ratings, it will really take some doing before the present-day science gets shaken into the realization of the more logical and rational idea.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share



Joel Mayer wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 22:48 GMT
Dear Mister Rafael Castel- Having read your essay I have decided to send you a copy of one of my works: ELECTRON BALLISTICS. You might enjoy the sections where I consider electron motion in an electric and a magnetic field (Kaufmann's particle accelerator). And make an effort to map the motion with the application of the parabola and the cycloid. Have you given any thought to cycloidal motion? Good Luck In The Contest! Joel Mayer, author: Is Reality Digital or Analog?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 03:00 GMT
Dear Joel,

Thanks. I will read that copy.

Your contest essay is interesting.

As for the cycloidal motion, yup. But I've focused on the toroidal, owing to the 3D considerations...

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 14:52 GMT
Raf

Stay with the toroid. I need a new name for a spiral multi helix that's joined at the ends, encompassing the Krispy Kreme. How about a 'Torix' or a 'Heloid'? Did you know the South Atlantic anomaly is the centre of cusp of our toroidal ionosphere/plasmasphere (the latter the outer more electron rich part). Not a lot of people know that. It's wandering around increasingly, almost certainly in advance of our overdue polarity change.

I've mailed you ref. a joint project. I can't recall if I left you this, http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 which you'd better read so you know what some logical DFM conclusions are.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 15:27 GMT
Dear Rafael and Peter,

This warped torus has both a Moebius strip "helical twist" behavior and a Fullerene lattice-like behavior. I'm going to build a larger paper model, and probably cut up a couple of Soccer balls within the week. Today is my daughter's birthday, so I'm busy all weekend...

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 06:22 GMT
Pete,

I should clarify something.

I think of at least two distinct types of motion constructs - the single-body motion constructs (particles) and the many-body motion constructs (aggregate of particles).

At the fundamental level, we have the single-body particulate motion constructs that are formed by the quantization of gravity. These motion constructs are the fundamental particles.

I think the 'cores' of black holes are the extreme single-body particulate motion constructs. My idea is that the massive stars and planets that fall as many-body motion constructs into a black hole are actually 'shredded' and they cease to be many-body motion constructs. They revert to being fundamental motions that are merged with the singular kinematic construct of the black hole core.

In the single-body motion constructs (such as particles and black holes), it appears that the resultant kinematic form is mainly the simple toroidal - this is where we have the simple dipole with the ingoing flow at one pole and the outgoing flow at the other pole.

However, in the many-body motion constructs (where we have the single-body motion constructs that interact to form the atoms, molecules, planets, stars, etc.), it appears that the resultant kinematic form is not always the simple toroidal - this is where we have the complex of currents/fields, the complex of the magnetic and electric currents.

The latter is probably where you have your Krispy Kreme wrapped with the toroidal.

Rafael

-----

Ray,

I think the resolved motion that is a "helical twist" around the toroid is in the single-body motion construct. It is also in the many-body motion constructs. But the unresolved motions of "lattice-like behavior" has got to be in the many-body motion constructs.

The motions are 'unresolved' if the simplex feature of the lattice are retained. Although of course the vectors that form the lattice are inevitably resolved depending on the kinematic intensities - such as the black hole 'singularity' conditions. Now, that is of course seeing vectors not scalars, since I employ kinematics not geometrics.

Rafael

P.S. Please forgive my delayed reply. I'm a bit busy. As it is, I'm doing this reply at the office of a client while I'm doing some work. Not very ethical...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 07:35 GMT
Pete, "Torix" is good. It's consistent with the "Toroid" term.

Ray, a moebius strip wrapped lattice-like on a toroid surface is a bit difficult if not impossible; but the helix twisted to map the toroid body looks fine, with the strip twisted helical-like for a moebius turn of the strip for the joined ends - altho this is difficult with the helical strip shrunk at the toroid hole and stretched at the outside of the toroid ring; do tell us how your cuts go... :)

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 06:16 GMT
Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for improvement.

Sir,

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

“We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author re castel wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 14:25 GMT
Basudeba,

You see,..

I am 64th in the community ratings, with an average of 3.7 from 21 Community Ratings. And I am 5th in the public ratings, with an average of 7.0 from 16 Public Ratings.

But, based on the contest rules that qualifies only the 35, I am out of the contest.

I am aware that by the contest rules, participants will mainly rate the others down and anybody with an email address (or more) can be a public rater. So, there is clearly the unfair circumstance and the loophole.

I am sure that FQXi are the best formulators of the contest rules since they are in the best position to do that. I am sure they have perfectly valid reasons for the contest rules they've promulgated.

Those of my own peers who publicly voted for me have rated me high because I think they see the merits of my work on account of our common knowledge background. We who have the same knowledge background are only quite a few. That's a reality that I can only face.

-

I have been very much aware that in the FQXi community most everyone goes with the "spacetime transformation" idea. So, it is to be expected that only a few in the community will understand my idea. I have noted only two other people (Petkov and Butler) in the contest who approach the "motion transformation" idea that I advocate.

My idea is not popular. So, I expected that the community will vote me down in the ratings.

I can only hope that the FQXi insiders will consider my essay because my idea somehow garnered a high vote in the public ratings and because there are two other people in the contest who came close to my novel idea of "motion transformations" that is relevant to the essay question.

Evidently, my idea has significant merits in both the FQXi community and the public at large. So, I am still hoping.

As for the contest rules, again, the way I see it, FQXi are the best formulators of the contest rules since they are in the best position to do that - they own the contest...

Rafael

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 15:10 GMT
There is not much that I can do in the contest now. But perhaps some of you might be interested in the following.

Hybrid Fission-Fusion Nuclear Reactor System (a.k.a. APNRSYS)

I need a reputable US collaborator in order to qualify for US DOE research funding. Anyone interested?

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on Apr. 3, 2011 @ 16:16 GMT
Eugene and all ye folks,

I somehow finished and got my essay entry submitted to the Gravity Research Foundation Competition. It is hard for me to believe that it will get a place, just as hard as it was for me to believe that my ideas will get accepted by the FQXi community. But, in any case, as it is about the origin of gravity, you folks might be interested in reading it.

You just might appreciate the 3-D gedanken I put forth instead of just the 2-D gendanken that Einstein put forth regarding the inertial and gravitational equivalence.

Eugene, I've argued with you somewhat regarding the origin of the fundamental field (i.e., the gravitational field)... My paper includes my explanation regarding the origin of gravity and shows why I've been inclined to believe in an infinitely hierarchical cosmos. The infinitely hierarchical cosmos is the only way I can explain the origin of gravity and I've explained it a bit in this essay on gravitation.

My essay paper is at http://www.kinematicrelativity.com/article_033.php. You can download the PDF.

I hope you guys will enjoy reading it.

Regards,

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on May. 3, 2011 @ 20:21 GMT
Dear Rafael,

On Lubos' blog site, you said:

BEGINNING OF QUOTE

I've been working on my idea regarding the origin of gravity. If you remember, I mentioned in my FQXi paper the idea of the revolutions of the cosmic systems in a hierarchical cosmos as the origin of gravity. Basically my idea is that the revolutions are the components of the gravitational tensor - which allows me...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on May. 5, 2011 @ 14:55 GMT
Ray, I am interested in your lattices because I realized that the various points of a lattice may be indicative of the kinds of particles stabilized (quantized) in various regions of the "outer layer or secondary kinematic field" generated around a "black hole singularity".

In the above, the "outer layer or secondary kinematic field" is quite similar to what EE Klingman refers to as the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 18:38 GMT
Dear Rafael,

To touch on a few points:

My concept of gravity and mass is that these originate at other scales (gravity is super-cosmic and mass is sub-quantum) and are transferred to our scale via some process such as holography. In the process, masses that may be quantized in another scale are "scrambled" such that the masses of fundamental particles seem to be random. Similarly,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on May. 5, 2011 @ 23:25 GMT
Ray, you missed a lot of points again.

You should reconsider the fundamentals of kinematics (have a pythagorean dream and go vectorial) and then read my explanations regarding the origin of gravity at this link - http://www.kinematicrelativity.com/article_033.php.

I don't worry about the idea of an expanding universe. I love the idea especially in the proper perspective where continuous creation occurs that allows me the view that the concertedly increasing momenta of the cosmic masses is the cause of the spiral expansion generally along their orbits.

An expanding, inflationary and attenuating universe going towards ultimate entropy is a decrepit perspective especially considering that gravity occurs.

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 6, 2011 @ 17:43 GMT
Dear Rafael,

Your Figure 4 is basically a tokamak geometry - similar to some of the stuff that Peter Jackson and I discussed a couple of months ago, and it would also agree with Edwin Klingman's ideas. My lattice-like torus model at the Black Hole "singularity" (and Alan Lowey's proton model) might be self-similar to your cosmic model.

Relativity prevents us from being able to directly detect the "center" of the Universe or any overall rotation about said "center". Xiang He and I recently discussed Ernest Sternglass' ideas on a rotating Universe in the "Clothes for the Standard Model" blog thread. My thoughts are that we need a "true inertial frame" with which to compare our Universe. The only "true inertial frame" that I could imagine that is greater than our Universe would be the Multiverse. If our Universe is rotating, then we might observe Coriolis effects. Sternglass and Xiang propose that a Universal rotation would cause a repulsive effect such as the cosmological constant, and may explain the reason why so many Galaxies are rotating spirals.

I used a "Hurricane" model (or would you prefer Typhoon?) whereby convective air currents and the Coriolis effect combined can explain the rotation and drift of Hurricanes. Similarly, IF frame-dragging and the Coriolis effect work together to produce rotating galaxies and an ever-expanding Universe, then we should be able to model that in such a manner as to predict the relative amounts of rotation and frame-dragging for various galaxies.

I am doubtful about "continuous creation". If the Big Bang is an ongoing process, then we should be able to detect some clear signals - such as electron-positron annihilation - that are not observed.

Regarding Occam's Razor, I have always considered it to be a balance between Simplicity and Necessity, but many people overemphasize the "simplicity" side of the balancing scales IMHO.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

re castel replied on May. 7, 2011 @ 01:59 GMT
Ray,

The Big Bang idea has been dead a long time ago. Perhaps, even dead before its inception.

The Continuous Creation idea is ascendant and has always been superior to the Big Bang idea for the thousands of years that man has been on the planet.

But asking me for text references on that will mean I go scriptural.

The oldest secular text I could give you is the Hymnn of Creation from the Rig-Veda, and that is considered the oldest text in the secular world (and actually not even secular at that).

Rafael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 7, 2011 @ 13:15 GMT
Hi Rafael,

I think that many of us have core belief systems that somewhat bias our philosophy and expectations. Personally, I am a Christian (Southern Baptist). And although many Southern Baptists follow a literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, I usually interpret parts of the Book of Genesis metaphorically, rather than literally - it is how I deal with certain perceived conflicts.

Regarding "continuous creation", you should go back and review the "Steady State" Universe, and the works of Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Sir Hermann Bondi. Big Bang seems to fit the experimental observations better than Steady State.

My problem with the Big Bang is that General Relativity implies that the Big Bang was a "singularity". I argue that infinity cannot exist within a finite Universe (13.7 billion light-years is huge but finite). Therefore, I conclude that the Big Bang (and the immediately following phase transition, Inflation) created an infinite Multiverse.

Another reasonable conclusion is that any sort of discrete behavior of spacetime limited the observable effects of the Big Bang such that we cannot witness the true "singularity" within our Observable Universe. This discreteness would occur at a very small scale such as ~10^(-33) m, and thus classically-scaled objects (humans of height ~2 m) would contain such a large number of "discrete" states that they would appear to be "continuous".

My comparisons with Solid State physics implies that if spacetime is discrete, then its reciprocal lattice, energy-momentum must also be discrete. Or vice versa, if energy-momentum is discrete, then its reciprocal lattice, spacetime must also be discrete. Within the mathematics of Solid State Physics and Fourier lattice transforms, it really doesn't matter which lattice you name "direct", and which lattice you name "reciprocal", they are equally fundamental.

Phase transitions (such as Inflation) are often the origin of self-similar structures (such as the Mandelbrot set or the Cantor set). I therefore conclude that our Observable Universe is but a finite fractal fragment of the infinite Cantor set that is the Multiverse.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on May. 7, 2011 @ 01:47 GMT
I just posted the following in Florin's blog.

Hi, all ye FQXi folks!

I just learned about these discussions from Dr Ray Munroe who mentioned their discussion with Xiang He.

I haven't read all the post. But I say Edwin E Klingman's position is still the more interesting and relevant, although his propositions are inadequate because of the flawed reasoning behind his logics and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on May. 9, 2011 @ 19:12 GMT
For John, Edwin, James, Xiang, Ray, and everyone:

John, you say:

*** Consider just what "motion" there is; Energy radiates out and mass collapses in. Given that even convention and observation agree these opposing processes are in equilibrium, the simplest explanation is a convection cycle, where radiation expands to the point of cooling down to the degree of coalescing out as a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


recastel wrote on May. 24, 2011 @ 11:09 GMT
As I've suspected all along, there are others who actually quite see the idea that motion is the fundamental reality underlying all "physical" things - mass, energy, gravity, the electric, the magnetic, the nuclear forces, etc.

Just today, 24-May-2011, I found something very interesting in the internet. This is from Dewey B. Larson's RS Theory.

In the interest of furthering the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.