[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 3, Issue 22

[Tufail Abbas]

Hans,

Thanks for the wonderful discussion,  that we had on the fundamental
reality that will never be observable, despite all expected future
sophistication of equipments, and I fully endorse your view in this regard.

I have noted from our discussions, and your articles on docs.com  that
there are certain similarities between the concepts within my Big Bathroom
Model and your theory that talks about modular structure, minimum length,
constant length of photon and existence of two format of information
(namely Euclidean and space-time format as you have mentioned).


I would request  you to please read my write-up on Model of Big Bathroom
Universe (link as below)  and provide your feedback/criticism  it based
upon your own theories.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/xj3fwgj0nms44b1/BB%20Model%
20by%20Tufail%20Abbas.pdf?dl=0



In particular, please advise if any Vector Transformation of space is
possible to write the proposed complex velocity as following equation.

EcosӨ/mc = c(cosӨ+isinӨ)


The positive connect that I could find between your descriptions and BB
Model  are as follows:


1. The information in this model is stored on the gyroscopic geometry of
mass.

2. As related to geometry of particles, c is a dimensional constant. This
information stored as shape/geometry of mass is translated as speed and
movement in space-time format.

3. Size and time frequency of the photon is constant for all wavelengths,
and increase in energy of the photon is contributed by space frequency and
Lorentz Factor.

4. There exist a fundamental mass and fundamental distance of Universe ,
which is same for all fundamental particles , and it's value need to be
discovered.

I also request every member of this forum  to thoroughly challenge this
model, and pose as many questions as possible so that this model can be
further explained and advanced.

Regards,

Tufail


On 30 Dec 2016 9:31 p.m., "Tufail Abbas" <tufail.abbas at gmail.com> wrote:

Hans,

Would like to comment on this:

>>>>>Physical reality as a model has a storage view and an observer's view.
The storage view offers access to dynamic geometric data in an Euclidean
format.

If there is an storage view then there must be some storage device (or
particle) on which this information is stored. I understand that by dynamic
geometric data , you may be suggesting that some of the particles of
standard model, are  moving in space while retaining a certain geometrical
structure in its rest frame?

>>>>>>The path that information must follow causes that observers do not
see these Euclidean format, but instead receive information in spacetime
format.
>>>>>>The Lorentz transform converts the Euclidean storage format into the
spacetime format.

Lorentz transform is a mathematical transform.  For this transformation to
happen as a part of physical reality, an operator should exist out there
physically  to make this transformation ?


Regards,

Tufail

On 29 Dec 2016 22:42, "Hans van Leunen" <jleunen1941 at kpnmail.nl> wrote:

Carl,
The problem with relativity is that it too much relies on experiments to
prove its existence.
In fact relativity is due to the fact that observers get their information
via vibrations and deformations of fields that embed them. In these fields
information transfer has a maximum speed and that maximum is determined by
the properties of that field. The dynamic behavior of the field is
described by differential equations and in particular by second order
partial differential equations. Physical reality as a model has a storage
view and an observer's view. The storage view offers access to dynamic
geometric data in an Euclidean format. The path that information must
follow causes that observers do not see these Euclidean format, but instead
receive information in spacetime format. That spacetime format features a
Minkowski signature. The Lorentz transform converts the Euclidean storage
format into the spacetime format.
Physical theories do not properly explain the difference between the
Euclidean storage format as is applied in Hilbert spaces and the spacetime
format that is perceived by observers. Einstein just bluntly applied the
Lorentz transform. He did not relate his relativity theory to the
eigenspaces of operators that reside in Hilbert space.
See: docs.com/hans-van-leunen
Greathings, Hans van Leunen

----Origineel Bericht----
Van : cj at mb-soft.com
Datum : 29/12/2016 17:03
Aan : physics at tuks.nl
Onderwerp : Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 3, Issue 22


Sorry if I came across poorly.  Sure, I would examine your paper.

On a separate point, it seems to me that whatever characteristics the
aether might have, it MUST have some "effect", that is, some detectable
result.  If the aether has NO detectable effects, how coulld it be said to
exist?

I happen to have a similar issue with "neutrinos" which are described as
having no characteristics, mo mass, no charge, etc.

In both cases, if you can find any "detectable effect" THEN you have a shot
at confirming that the entity exists.

I also note that some of you inn the Group DO understand such things, where
my criticism was more against the members who do not have the needed
education.  In some ways, you are following along Michelson's thinking
where he intended to prove that the aether DID exist, but when his
experiment never showed any evidence, Michelson came to conclude that the
aether did not exist (because it has no detectable effects).

Anything which has extremely minimal effect to try to detect, and you wind
up like Michelson-Morley, where they set up their experiment to "prove that
the aether existed" but then they were surprised by the evidence (or lack
thereof) which caused them to conclude exactly the opposite.

I strongly encourage ALL physicists to apply the most strict logic they
can, to find whatever might be waiting for them.  What drives me crazy
(very commonly in the "mainstream physics community") is that very sloppy
logic is used, where little of value is possible.

Sorry that I had sounded like a jerk.  I just wish ALL Physicists would
"massively research and examine historical records" where our communnity
might have a chance of finding valuable insights.

Carl Johnson






_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170101/b142d0ed/attachment.html>