[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19

Wed Dec 28 11:17:34 CET 2016

Physical reality is completely described in a Euclidean setting and the result is stored in quaternionic format in eigenspaces of operators that reside in a separable Hilbert space. Continuums are stored in a companion non-separable Hilbert space. Observers cannot see the stored discrete information directly. They only get information from the past that is transferred to them via vibrations or deformations of continuums. These continuums are afflicted with a maximum of the speed at which they can transport information. The Lorentz transform accounts for this defect.. All discrete objects in universe are modules or they are modular systems. Elementary modules exist that are not configured of other modules, but other modules and modular systems are configured from elementary modules. All modules, including the elementary modules act as observers and all existing observers travel trough the model in a vane that represents the current static status quo. The vane divides universe in a historic part, the current static status quo, and a future part. 
All discrete and continuum dynamic geometric data are stored in the mentioned repositories. This storage is applied independent of the fact that these data belong to the past, the presence, or the future. The rest is mathematics!
Hans van Leunen
----Origineel Bericht----
Van : tufail.abbas at gmail.com
Datum : 28/12/2016 09:56
Aan : physics at tuks.nl
Onderwerp : Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19

   Yes it is possible that we here at this forum, may apparently seems like making horrible assumptions and speculations, but that does not mean that our assumptions are totally unfounded. The only difference is that when a noted/famous physicist make similar assumptions, then they are hailed for their brilliance, whereas lot of meaningful efforts by many other remains unnoticed and gets rejected without consideration.  I am sure that all of you are well grounded in knowledge, and  every paper that you have produced is a result of lot of hard work and valuable time that you have invested through years of research. 

   Nevertheless, If we want to live happily and long, humor is the best remedy that we have. Therefore it is nothing wrong to discover humor in aether discussion. It's healthy. 

    I also find a lot of humor in the way the assumptions are made under SR and out of the experiment carried out by Michelson-Morley. Let us discuss each of it:

    Special Relativity

    To start with, I quote from Carl's email :

    >>>>>>>>it seemed obvious to me that your grasp of both Special Relativity and General Relativity, cannot really become solid.

As it seems to me,  the implicit message in this statement is that, anybody who is not accepting the conventional interpretation of equations under SR and GR  do not have enough grasp over these theories. In other words only way to demonstrate  your grasp over these theories is to conform to conventional interpretation.

    Now some quotes from the book "Meaning of Relativity" from Albert Einstein himself (://books.google.com.om/books?
         id=cw3rAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=ein
         stein+meaning+of+relativity+ic
         t&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=one
         page&q=einstein%20meaning%20of
         %20relativity%20ict&f=false

 Quote: Page 29 

Let ray of light pass from P1 to another point P2 of K1 through vacuum. If r is the measured distance between P1 and P2, then propagation of light must satisfy the equation r= c.dt . 

Quote Page 30

   In the pre-relativity physics space and time were separate entities. Specifications of choice were independent of the choice of space of reference

    From this point onward, albert Einstein derived the whole theory of relativity, to finally conclude that time dilates and space(or vacuum) bends.

    In these initial statements itself, behavior or nature of at-least four(4) phenomenon/parameters are either assumed or taken for granted:

    1. Vacuum: What does this vacuum actually contain. What is meant by travelling through vacuum if it means nothing. 

    2. Measurement: What constitute a single most basic measurement in this Universe and what is the mechanism of making that measurement. How the most basic particles of the Universe respond to changes in this Universe to make this basic measurement. If one of these particles is the standard of measurement, then what difficulty we could face while measuring this standard by comparing it with particles that are usually measured.

    3.Propagation of Light: By measuring the behavior at source and destination end, and then concluding that it has behaved in similar manner while it was travelling is also an assumption. 

    4. Reference Frame: While defining a reference frame, is it not a worthwhile contemplation that what constitutes a reference frame. How does all particles in a particular rest frame are aware that other particles are in same rest frame, that they agree that relativistic mass now has to be zero. 

When we are still not sure that what exactly is space and what  exactly is time, isn't it humorous when we declare that time-dilates  and space bends without a full understanding of space and time  itself . This is like declaring that “banana is red” and “apple is yellow”, without defining “what is a banana” or “what is an apple”. If we will continue to believe that ‘apple is banana', we will continue to make conclusion that “banana is red”. 

Why it is not possible that this is the case of mistaken identity?

Now let us see Michelson- Morley Experiment,

The assumption that were made under Michelson-Morley Experiments are as follows:

          1. If aether is a medium, then e/m waves should travel through it, following exactly the same principles that are applicable for propagation of conventional transverse waves of sea.

          2. Nature of the Aether was assumed to of either of the following two possibility:

           a. Aether is partially dragged by earth in motion.

           b.  aether was completely dragged, thus sharing it motion at earth surface.

           Then the experiment was conducted and its was concluded that none of the above assumptions are correct. And based upon this it was concluded that "aether do not exist"

            This is like first assuming that:

              1.    Potato is a ‘perfect square’ , 

              2.    Size of potato is as big as football field’, 

              3.    Potato is blue in color.

              And when we found none of our assumptions about potato is correct, then we declared that "Potato does not exist."

              A more reasonable conclusion would have been:

              1. Potato is not a ‘perfect square’, 

              2. Size of potato is not as big as football field, 

              3. Potato is not blue in color. 

              4. We don’t know what the Potato is, if it exist.

I agree with Carl that checking facts and logic is extremely important to produce a well founded theory. 
On the other hand,  no idea should be out-rightly  rejected, just due to reason that they do not match with theories (based upon some  initial assumptions) possibly accepted as facts by many. There is no way to know, that which idea  has that element of truth which may lead us into the right direction.
With this, I congratulate and wish all the best to all the participants of this forum for laying this small foundation, which has all the potential to pave the road to future of physics.

Let’s come together to freely express our ideas, for churning out this gift for our future generation -  “A simple and beautiful theory of physics”,

    On 27 December 2016 at 21:09, Hans van Leunen 
    <jleunen1941 at kpnmail.nl> wrote:

Dear Carl Johnson,

Physical reality has some built-in healing principles that cleans theories about its structure and phenomena.

Physical reality has a rather simple foundation, which is easily comprehensible. Extension of this foundation with trustworthy mathematical methods must automatically result into a more complicated model of reality that after some extension steps will show features and phenomena, which we know from observing reality. This path does not allow fantasy theories. It automatically guides you in the proper direction. The problem is that you must first find that foundation. The foundation is simple, thus there exist a big chance that the structure of this foundation was discovered long ago, but it was not detected that this structure IS the foundation of reality. So you must rediscover this structure. Quite probable it was stored as part of mathematics. If you happen to rediscover it, then an important property is that any extension of this foundation leads to a more complicated model that is again a model of physical reality.

This is the idea behind the Hilbert Book Model project. A report about the status of the projects is https://doc.co/WmxXCB

Sincerely yours,

Hans van Leunen

Van: Physics [mailto:physics-bounces at tuks.n
               l] Namens cj at mb-soft.com
Verzonden: dinsdag 27 december 2016 16:26
Aan:physics at tuks.nl
Onderwerp: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19

I fully concur with you gentlemen that many of the “mainstream” modern Physicists use horrible assumptions and speculations in dreaming up many of the ideas which all other mainstream physicists then immediately accept. 

However, I see a variation of that same problem in the discussions that you gentlemen try to discuss in this Forum. As a Theoretical Physicist, I find humor in some of your arguments. A recent example is your fascination with “aether”. IF you are going to refer to historical information, please make an effort to get your facts straight. It is darkly hilarious that you discuss incremental differences, and errors, in the orbital parameters of the planets, where you then attempt to justify the “aether” regarding those math issues. PLEASE check your history regarding such things. Kepler was a smart guy, but he lived a hundred years (five generations) before the even smarter Isaac Newton. Kepler very reasonably assumed that the mass of the Sun established the orbital parameters of the planets, and it was very impressive that he determined that the Sun is at one of the foci of each planet’s elliptical orbits.

It was a hundred years later that Newton realized that BOTH masses orbit each other in such ellipses, where he corrected Kepler’s earlier math imprecision.

So your arguments today about trying to sleuth out some aether explanation for that difference are in error. It was merely the way science advances through history. 

I note that none of you seem to refer to another advance that Newton made, due to his “Fluxions” (which we call Calculus). Even the “mainstream physics community” have not gotten past Kepler here. Kepler’s ideas that everything in the Solar System are entirely dependent on the Sun’s mass, is STILL assumed to apply to the Milky Way Galaxy, and so people argue today that the Spiral Arms fail to comply with Kepler’s Laws in having any chance of being stable. The mainstream physics community should also check their historical records, to see that Newton had also resolved that a hundred years after Kepler, by stating that Calculus must be used regarding the DISTRIBUTED MASS of any entity like the Galaxy, where Kepler’s assumption of a POINT MASS of the Sun was relatively accurate for the Solar System.

It is really critically important to be extremely careful in checking all facts and logic, if worthwhile physics might result. 

A few weeks ago, I had noticed a similar error of such sloppiness in your discussions about Michelson-Morley and Lorentz and Fitzgerald and Maxwell (a genration before the others, around 1860). As a Physics student at the University of Chicago, we spent months in very carefully examining and analyzing all of the thoughts of those brilliant men (and Faraday even earlier). Comments by some of you gentlemen seem to have neglected a lot of that important fact-checking, where you express “personal opinions” which were often just speculations. Due to such logical errors, it seemed obvious to me that your grasp of both Special Relativity and General Relativity, cannot really become solid.

If you really want to advance the field of Physics, or even better, clean up some of the areas of the speculations of the “mainstream physics community”, you really should rigidly check your facts and logic before building your own conjectures. 

Carl Johnson

______________________________
        _________________
 Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/ma
         ilman/listinfo/physics

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161228/37c9340b/attachment.html>