[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 4, Issue 4

Wed Jan 11 14:32:22 CET 2017

Hello Ruud,

Thanks for you nice critique, and I appreciate it a lot. I am glad that you
have actually read the whole paper despite the shortcomings that it had.

It is very encouraging for me that you recognized my message of a cubical
framework as pointed out in comments sl 6 and 11,

Regards,

Tufail Abbas

I will surely take into consideration you comments to make improvement
both in presentation and contents.

On 11 January 2017 at 16:41, Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170111/60482489/attachment.html>