[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 4, Issue 4

Ruud Loeffen rmmloeffen at gmail.com
Wed Jan 11 13:41:21 CET 2017 

Hello Tufail.

On your request I read your paper about Cube. I was a teacher and as such I
had to review many papers for graduation theses (in Dutch). I just wrote my
commentary for my students directly when reading the papers, pretending I
was an alien reader who did not know the student. So I did with your paper.
You know there are thousands of papers written yearly. It is important to
get the interest of the reader so he will finish the whole story. So, these
are my comments:

Some remarks at CUBE - THE PHYSICAL FOUNDATION OF MULTIVERSE of Tufail
Abbas.


1.       The presentation on “Cubes” as being elementary building blocs of
the universe, initiates a feeling of “not-acceptable” since most objects we
know are spheres and the movements are mostly orbiting motions. As you
stated later*: **It's a bit non-intuitive that building block of the
Universe could be a cube, as everything that we see in the Universe is
curved and waving.* So, from the beginning you create a defensive attitude
by the reader. You admit this yourself.

2.       You write *These Cubes shall explain everything**.” *That makes it
even harder for readers to go on, because most insiders spend already a lot
of time reading “final” theories, “theories of everything” and alike.
Readers want to judge themselves after reading the whole paper.

3.       You go on than with “ *Universe is like a Big Bathroom*”. I am
sorry to say this again: the reader does not know what you are going to
postulate and he surely does not want to know about a bathroom. As you note
yourself: *Note: This definition is metaphoric . *But most readers probably
lost already their patience and are gone.

4.       Instead of the points 1-3 it would be much better to start with*:
It would be possible to express all physical properties (i.e. space, time,
energy, charge, momentum, temperature, velocity, force etc) in terms of the
geometric parameters (i.e. length, surface area, volume, angle,
orientation, cycles) of these cubes *That would be interesting because
geometry is not often used to describe macro objects and elementary
particles.

5.       At page 6 it is going to be interesting. So, you better start with
that information. The pictures are beautiful and inviting.

6.       Page 7: makes it clear: *The perfect orthogonal alignment of
motion, flux and current in three spatial orientation cannot be explained,
except by an underlying cubicle structure**.* Now I understand what you
mean: you are just looking for a FRAME to put your data in. *You don’t mean
that things in the universe consist of a cube*: it’s just used as your
drawing medium, like a painter uses his easel.

7.        Page 8: *If we consider the philosophy that consciousness
controls matter*” I don’t think that consciousness CONTROLS matter. I
think: our consciousness *defines* matter and our definition is related to
the physical structure of our brain.

8.      Page 10: *In our study about the Universe, whether it is study of
quantum particles or the study of cosmological movement, the sense that we
mostly utilize to collect data,  is our sense of Vision.  This sense needs
some scrutiny for sure. *Yes indeed: this is what I also stated repeatedly
in “Mind-blowing Gravitation”.

9.      From page 11: interesting!

10.  Page 12: *"The reality as we see, can easily be created by infinite
number of 2-dimensional planes separated by infinite number of one(1)
dimensional connecting link in 3 spatial direction.”* This is much like the
celluloid movies, with pictures that are projected with 25 frames per
second.

11.  Fig 3.5 affirms what I thought about the cubes: they are an easel for
you to represent the objects and movements. They are not really objects
THEMSELVES in universe. See point 4 again please.

12.  Page 17: you make the drawings and pictures yourself? Nice! But the
duck will notice a kind of stream from thw ater passing by….

13.   Page 18:  Similar to the example of duck moving through the water in
the above example, all objects in the Universe are in state of motion with
respect to space. This is just a statement at this moment. You did not
prove it yet. So it’s better to say: “It is possible that all objects in
the Universe are in state of motion with respect to space”

14.  From here I can follow your reasoning. I am not really educated to
judge, but I think it’s OK. I am just curious to see how the Lorentz Trans
form would function in your essay.As you write: *“However, derivation of
numerical value of  G from above concepts shall require missing values of m*
*o **and s and w, which shall be discovered. It should be expected as per
BB Model, that ‘w’ will be derived from a Lorentz Factor due to relative
velocity of Solar System with respect to Universal Cubic Lattice as
explained  in previous Chapters.”*

In general: your paper deserves to be improved in respect to keep the
interest of the reader going on.

I hope my remarks are helpful. I gave them as my honest opinion.

Best regards.

Ruud Loeffen.

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello Ruud,
>
> My comments are as follows:
>
> The Gravity produce acceleration and acceleration is change in velocity
> with time. In case of an object that we visually see  moving wrt to a
> reference frame (whatever it is), it is easy to comprehend what an
> acceleration and velocity would mean.
>
> In case of a body at rest, upon which the net force is zero, it implies
> that  it is moving at a constant velocity.
>
> Now, what could be the velocity of a body at rest. Intuitively , it should
> be zero. What if, that is not the case and we have some intrinsic velocity.
> If we can have an intrinsic angular momentum then why not am intrinsic
> velocity or velocity of an object at rest. I have explained this concept by
> taking the example of "The Moving Tub" in the Chapter 4 of my Paper (in
> progress) titled "Cube". The link is provided as below.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/0d7z0ukm5tp7tez/Cube.pdf?dl=0
>
>
> In order to explain gravity from the concept of this rest velocity, each
> spherical surface around the mass at the given radius r will be moving at
> constant velocity. Please note that this is the velocity of the surface
> itself, and not the velocity of the body moving through that surface. This
> rest velocity gradually increases with the decreasing radius as the time
> dilates(whatever that mean) with the surface area. Hence an acceleration as
> we move toward the center of the mass.
>
> Attracted body will come to apparent rest at a surface where the rest
> velocity of surface will be equivalent to rest velocity of the body.
>
> So far as factor/derivative of gamma is concerned, I see its relevance a
> bit differently, which is mentioned at the end of the Chapter 5.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tufail Abbas
>
> On 11 Jan 2017 11:42, "Ruud Loeffen" <rmmloeffen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To Carl Johnson.
>
>
>
> I read on Carl’s website interesting information about the movement of our
> Sun in the spiral arm of our Galaxy. I favor Carl’s ideas and insights as
> he mentioned on his website  http://mb-soft.com/public/galaxy.html I am
> especially interested in the information there provided:
> *"Given that our local motion is believed to be around 20 km/sec toward
> the Apex, this means that the Sun has a Z-axis (vertical) component
> velocity of around 8.7 km/sec upward relative to the Galaxy Plane (toward
> the North Galactic Pole). It also has a radially-inward (toward the Core)
> component velocity component of around 12.0 km/sec. The bulk of this local
> motion is the third component, along the direction of the revolution motion
> of the Sun around the Galaxy, with that component being around 16.0 km/sec.
> This is in general agreement with currently accepted figures: (found in
> Wiedenhoff) "the galactic circular velocity components, which give [for the
> Sun] U = -9 km/sec, V = +12 km/sec, and W = +7 km/sec." where "Space
> motions comprise a three-dimensional determination of stellar motion. They
> may be divided into a set of components related to directions in the
> Galaxy: U, directed away from the galactic centre; V, in the direction of
> galactic rotation; and W, toward the north galactic pole."*
>
> I hope you read my Emails about the possible relation between Gravitation
> (especially the Newtonian Constant) and Lorentz Transformation of
> Mass-Energy (LTME). I calculated the velocity “v” in the LTME equation to
> be 12278 m/s (12,278 km/s) or v^2 to be: 1,507553E+08
>
> Do you think that there could be some relation between the magnitudes
> above and the calculations in the LTME calculation?
>
> I put a paper about the reasoning on the factor Gamma in my Dropbox.
> Perhaps you and other members could be interested.
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/88c4chl850mrqjc/The%20GAMMA%20FACTOR.pdf?dl=0
>
>
> Best regards.
>
>
> Ruud Loeffen.
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:11 AM, <cj at mb-soft.com> wrote:
>
>> To Tom Hollings:
>>
>> I think we are on the same page, but I really believe that Gravitational
>> Lensing is POSSIBLE, although I do not think it is due to any GR effects.
>> My specific issue here is that geometry and logic should seem to create
>> "perfectly symmetric" patterns of images, same brightness, same spacing,
>> same spectras.  When I  have looked at claims of Einstein Crosses, and very
>> carefully measured the spacing of the images, I have not seen any which
>> really have precise spacing.  I have not had access to the spectra of the
>> various Einstein Cross images, but some seem to just be "really poor".
>>
>> As to the basic CAUSE of possible Gravitational Lensing, it may be beyond
>> me.  I look forward to anyone informing me of any Einstein Cross which
>> seems to be logically and geometrically impressive, to confirm to me that
>> the "phenomenon" is credible.  Once that is the case, bring on any
>> arguments regarding mass and such.
>>
>> Mr. Hollings, you may enjoy a graphic in one of my web-pages,
>> http://mb-soft.com/public/galaxy.html
>>
>> IIt is a sky map showing the locations of the Core, the location 90
>> degrees away from that (as a potential direction our "sun orbiting" might
>> be headed in that 200 million year orbit), the ACTUAL direction our Sun
>> is moving (XYZ), etc.  I used that info to determine the Z velocity of our
>> actual sun's motion (currently upward).  I also combined the various
>> velocities to determine our components due to the Kepler gravitational
>> effect and some other velocities we experience within our Orion Arm.
>> Around twenty years ago, I concluded that our Solar system "weaves"
>> radially across our Arm (partly due to the asymmetric taper spape of all
>> Spiral Arms, where more attraction is "ahead of us" and less attraction
>> "behind us" in our Arm.  Other gravitational effects also exist, all of
>> which I credit to Newton, and NONE of which I credit to any GR.  I spent a
>> couple years doing the newtonian gravitational attraction calculations, and
>> came to an estimate that one result is that we "weave" back and forth
>> across our Arm about every 52 million years (and we are currently near the
>> inner edge of it.
>>
>> No one has ever bought into this (yet) but those calculations suggest
>> that we pass through a very cluttered Arm center-line area every 26
>> million years.  I think it may be a cause for the Moon and Mars and Mercury
>> to have southern hemispheres which are very pock-marked.  And possibly
>> bombardment on us on Earth 65 million years ago which might have toasted
>> the latest dinosaurs.
>>
>> Oh, the 200 million year sun orbit figure is mostly due to a (very weak)
>> Kepler calculation.  It may be fairly accurate, but I am uncomfortable with
>> the logic in relying on Kepler for it.
>>
>> And people in this group seem to assume that I am a "Relativity wonk".
>> RARELY, I see enough logic to support some possible SR or GR claims, but
>> many of you guys seem to w ant to associate GR with far too many things.  I
>> am currently composing a fairly brief discussion about SR, which mostly
>> denies almost all the issues it gets credit for.  It IS valid, but for some
>> reason, nearly everyone seems to give even SR all kinds of credit.
>>
>> Carl Johnson
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Ruud Loeffen*
> Paardestraat32
> 6131HC Sittard
> http://www.human-DNA.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>


-- 
*Ruud Loeffen*
Paardestraat32
6131HC Sittard
http://www.human-DNA.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170111/13ccbb00/attachment.html>

More information about the Physics mailing list