Dear Sir,
We had gone through your analytical descriptions.
How do you define space, time, space-time and the 'gaps' or 'discontinuities' in the space and time? Both space and time are related to sequence - the order of arrangement. The interval between objects is space and the interval between events is time. We measure these intervals with a standard unit that is easily intelligible and fairly repetitive and call the result space and time measurement. Thus, space and time are nothing but 'gaps' or 'discontinuities' between objects and events. Since these intervals are segments of the analog space and time (which are infinite) they cannot be described by comparison with themselves. Hence we use alternative symbolism of objects and events and call it as space and time. You also agree with the above concept when you say that: "Space in itself and Time in itself have no meaning." Both being infinite, they could only co-exist, but not as a four dimensional space-time manifold due to the following reasons:
The Kaluza-Klein compactification and other "theories" relating to extra-dimensions are only figments of imagination. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For perception of the spread of the object, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the object must interact with that of our eyes. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both are perpendicular to the direction of motion, we can perceive the spread only in these three directions. Measuring the spread is essentially measuring the space occupied by it. This measurement can be done only with reference to some external frame of reference. For the above reason, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the structure (spread) of the object. Based on the positive and negative (spreading out and contracting in) directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x, y), (-x, y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y) where x = y for any value of x and y, which also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures. These are described in detail in our book. Since time does not fit in this description, it is not a dimension.
We have commented elaborately in various threads in this forum, specifically those under the essays of Mr. Castel, Mr. Granet, and others that special relativity is a wrong description of facts. Here we quote from Einstein's 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and offer our comments. He says:
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
Here clock at A is the privileged frame of reference. Yet, he tells the opposite by denying any privileged frame of reference. Further, his description of the length measurement is faulty. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.
Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-
(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.
(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod".
In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.
The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system". This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.
Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).
Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.
Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation.
The concepts of equivalence and general relativity are also wrong. Newton accepted the absolute space where the Earth and the apple are stationary and gravity pulled the apple towards the Earth. This concept is wrong, because pulling is physically impossible. What we call pull is actually a push from the opposite direction. So what pushed the apple? Einstein also thought that both the Earth and the apple are stationary, but the space between them "curved", so that the apple appeared to touch Earth with a corresponding increase of space between the apple and its stem. Just like while traveling in a boat the stationary trees appear to be moving in the opposite direction, the apparent motion (curvature) of space appears as gravity pulling the apple. There is no way to distinguish between the two descriptions: Whether the intervening space curved or the apple actually fell. But this is a wrong description of facts. Equivalence principle is valid only to the extent that for every action that induces inertia of motion, there is an equal reaction in the opposite direction due to the inertia of restoration (elasticity). When the results of these inertias are linearly perceptible, they are equivalent to the Newton's third law. But when they are non-linear, they appear as different forces of Nature. Just like there are ways of finding out whether the boat is moving or the trees are moving, similarly, there are ways to know whether the curvature of space is the right description or there are other explanations. We have an alternative explanation.
We treat the field as absolute and particles are confined fields. We have a detailed mechanism for this which we are not discussing now. As we have described elsewhere, when some object is placed in a field, the object experiences something else. This something else is a kind of force. Depending upon the nature of such interaction, the force is classified into different groups. The particles don't interact with each other directly. Each interacts with the field, which, in turn gets modified locally due to such interaction. When other particles interact with this modified field, they experience a different force than that they would have experienced in the absence of the other particle. This is what we call the effect of one particle interacting with the other particle or how the particle "sees" the other particle. It is dependent on the distance between the two also (not alone). But what we measure is not observer independent. The location of the observer with reference to the particle introduces different uncertainties changing the values for the observer, though apparently it does not affect how a particle evolves in time (it affect in other subtle ways). There is no way to isolate the particles and measure their energy independently.
Due to the principles of inertia described above, densities of the mediums induce motion. This motion of the field has been wrongly described by Einstein as the curvature of the space. The first law of quantum gravity can be derived from this principle. This also shows why velocity of light is the limiting velocity for all macro particles.
Once a force is applied to a particle, it is displaced. Thereafter, the force ceases to operate on it and the body moves on inertia, which, in the absence of other forces, is its constant velocity. A body can be accelerated only if some other force acts on it. But again, it will move on inertia at constant velocity at the next moment. But the motion of the Universal field being the highest (because its density is the lowest), all bodies are affected by it uniformly. This proves the constancy of the velocity of light in space. Since other particles are subject to different forces in the local field, they move differently. Thus, acceleration is not the right concept to describe reality.
We have different explanations for the so-called dark matter and dark energy.
Dualism and Non-Dualism are based on the relative view point of the observer. Since ultimately all particles can move only with one velocity, it may be Non-Dual in ultimate analysis. But in day-to-day experience, we come across various velocities, which appears to accelerate (also decelerate) objects variously. This may be called Dual nature of velocity.
Finally, the concept of Adwaita is much deeper and not to be confused with modern science, which can be explained by Samkhya- Vaisheshika- Nyaaya combine provided one has a proper knowledge on those subjects. By proper knowledge we mean as it was interpreted by Bharadwaaja Vritti, Atri Bhaashya and Katandi of Ravan.
Regards,
basudeba.