<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">Hans,</span><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">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. </div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">I have noted from our discussions, and your articles on <a href="http://docs.com/" target="_blank">docs.com</a> 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). </div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">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. </div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/xj3fwgj0nms44b1/BB%20Model%20by%20Tufail%20Abbas.pdf?dl=0" target="_blank">https://www.dropbox.com/s/<wbr>xj3fwgj0nms44b1/BB%20Model%<wbr>20by%20Tufail%20Abbas.pdf?dl=0</a><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:sans-serif" dir="auto">In particular, please advise if any Vector Transformation of space is possible to write the proposed complex velocity as following equation.</div><div style="font-family:sans-serif" dir="auto"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><br></font></div><p style="font-family:sans-serif;margin:0in 0in 0pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">EcosӨ/mc = c(cosӨ+isinӨ)</font></p><div style="font-family:sans-serif" dir="auto"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">The positive connect that I could find between your descriptions and BB Model are as follows:</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">1. The information in this model is stored on the gyroscopic geometry of mass.</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">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. </div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">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.</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">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.</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">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.</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">Regards,</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">Tufail </div><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></span><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 30 Dec 2016 9:31 p.m., "Tufail Abbas" <<a href="mailto:tufail.abbas@gmail.com" target="_blank">tufail.abbas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="m_1955682437609760380quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">Hans,</span></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Would like to comment on this:</div><div class="m_1955682437609760380quoted-text"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:sans-serif">>>>>></span><span style="font-family:sans-serif">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. </span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></span></div></div><div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif">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? </font></div><div class="m_1955682437609760380quoted-text"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">>>>>>>The path that information must follow causes that observers do not see these Euclidean format, but instead receive information in spacetime format.</span></div></div><div class="m_1955682437609760380quoted-text"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">>>>>>>The Lorentz transform converts the Euclidean storage format into the spacetime format.</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></span></div></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">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 ?</span></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></span></div><div dir="auto">Regards,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Tufail </div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="m_1955682437609760380elided-text">On 29 Dec 2016 22:42, "Hans van Leunen" <<a href="mailto:jleunen1941@kpnmail.nl" target="_blank">jleunen1941@kpnmail.nl</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div><blockquote class="m_1955682437609760380m_-9167033352487412972m_4181693056143160526quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="m_1955682437609760380elided-text">Carl,<div>The problem with relativity is that it too much relies on experiments to prove its existence.</div><div>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.</div><div>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.</div><div>See: <a href="http://docs.com/hans-van-leunen" target="_blank">docs.com/hans-van-leunen</a></div><div>Greathings, Hans van Leunen<br><blockquote style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:15px">----Origineel Bericht----<br>Van : <a href="mailto:cj@mb-soft.com" target="_blank">cj@mb-soft.com</a><br>Datum : 29/12/2016 17:03<br>Aan : <a href="mailto:physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">physics@tuks.nl</a><br>Onderwerp : Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 3, Issue 22<div class="m_1955682437609760380m_-9167033352487412972m_4181693056143160526elided-text"><br><br><u></u><u></u>
<u></u><u></u>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial">Sorry if I came across poorly. Sure, I would examine your paper.</font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial"></font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial">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?</font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial"></font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial">I happen to have a similar issue with "neutrinos" which are described as having no characteristics, mo mass, no charge, etc. </font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial"></font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial">In both cases, if you can find any "detectable effect" THEN you have a shot at confirming that the entity exists.</font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial"></font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial">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).</font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial"></font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial">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.</font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial"></font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial">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.</font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial"></font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial">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.</font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial"></font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial">Carl Johnson</font>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial"></font>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2" face="Arial"></font>
</div><br></div></blockquote><br><p></p></div><br></div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/ma<wbr>ilman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>