We had gone through your analytical descriptions.
How do you define space, time, space-time and the ‘gaps’ or ‘discontinuities’ in the space and time? Both space and time are related to sequence – the order of arrangement. The interval between objects is space and the interval between events is time. We measure these intervals with a standard unit that is easily intelligible and fairly repetitive and call the result space and time measurement. Thus, space and time are nothing but ‘gaps’ or ‘discontinuities’ between objects and events. Since these intervals are segments of the analog space and time (which are infinite) they cannot be described by comparison with themselves. Hence we use alternative symbolism of objects and events and call it as space and time. You also agree with the above concept when you say that: “Space in itself and Time in itself have no meaning.” Both being infinite, they could only co-exist, but not as a four dimensional space-time manifold due to the following reasons:
The Kaluza-Klein compactification and other “theories” relating to extra-dimensions are only figments of imagination. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For perception of the spread of the object, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the object must interact with that of our eyes. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both are perpendicular to the direction of motion, we can perceive the spread only in these three directions. Measuring the spread is essentially measuring the space occupied by it. This measurement can be done only with reference to some external frame of reference. For the above reason, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the structure (spread) of the object. Based on the positive and negative (spreading out and contracting in) directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x, y), (-x, y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y) where x = y for any value of x and y, which also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures. These are described in detail in our book. Since time does not fit in this description, it is not a dimension.
We have commented elaborately in various threads in this forum, specifically those under the essays of Mr. Castel, Mr. Granet, and others that special relativity is a wrong description of facts. Here we quote from Einstein’s 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and offer our comments. He says:
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
Here clock at A is the privileged frame of reference. Yet, he tells the opposite by denying any privileged frame of reference. Further, his description of the length measurement is faulty. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.
Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-
(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.
(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of the rod”.
In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.
The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system”. This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.
Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).
Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results – one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.
Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation.
The concepts of equivalence and general relativity are also wrong. Newton accepted the absolute space where the Earth and the apple are stationary and gravity pulled the apple towards the Earth. This concept is wrong, because pulling is physically impossible. What we call pull is actually a push from the opposite direction. So what pushed the apple? Einstein also thought that both the Earth and the apple are stationary, but the space between them “curved”, so that the apple appeared to touch Earth with a corresponding increase of space between the apple and its stem. Just like while traveling in a boat the stationary trees appear to be moving in the opposite direction, the apparent motion (curvature) of space appears as gravity pulling the apple. There is no way to distinguish between the two descriptions: Whether the intervening space curved or the apple actually fell. But this is a wrong description of facts. Equivalence principle is valid only to the extent that for every action that induces inertia of motion, there is an equal reaction in the opposite direction due to the inertia of restoration (elasticity). When the results of these inertias are linearly perceptible, they are equivalent to the Newton’s third law. But when they are non-linear, they appear as different forces of Nature. Just like there are ways of finding out whether the boat is moving or the trees are moving, similarly, there are ways to know whether the curvature of space is the right description or there are other explanations. We have an alternative explanation.
We treat the field as absolute and particles are confined fields. We have a detailed mechanism for this which we are not discussing now. As we have described elsewhere, when some object is placed in a field, the object experiences something else. This something else is a kind of force. Depending upon the nature of such interaction, the force is classified into different groups. The particles don’t interact with each other directly. Each interacts with the field, which, in turn gets modified locally due to such interaction. When other particles interact with this modified field, they experience a different force than that they would have experienced in the absence of the other particle. This is what we call the effect of one particle interacting with the other particle or how the particle “sees” the other particle. It is dependent on the distance between the two also (not alone). But what we measure is not observer independent. The location of the observer with reference to the particle introduces different uncertainties changing the values for the observer, though apparently it does not affect how a particle evolves in time (it affect in other subtle ways). There is no way to isolate the particles and measure their energy independently.
Due to the principles of inertia described above, densities of the mediums induce motion. This motion of the field has been wrongly described by Einstein as the curvature of the space. The first law of quantum gravity can be derived from this principle. This also shows why velocity of light is the limiting velocity for all macro particles.
Once a force is applied to a particle, it is displaced. Thereafter, the force ceases to operate on it and the body moves on inertia, which, in the absence of other forces, is its constant velocity. A body can be accelerated only if some other force acts on it. But again, it will move on inertia at constant velocity at the next moment. But the motion of the Universal field being the highest (because its density is the lowest), all bodies are affected by it uniformly. This proves the constancy of the velocity of light in space. Since other particles are subject to different forces in the local field, they move differently. Thus, acceleration is not the right concept to describe reality.
We have different explanations for the so-called dark matter and dark energy.
Dualism and Non-Dualism are based on the relative view point of the observer. Since ultimately all particles can move only with one velocity, it may be Non-Dual in ultimate analysis. But in day-to-day experience, we come across various velocities, which appears to accelerate (also decelerate) objects variously. This may be called Dual nature of velocity.
Finally, the concept of Adwaita is much deeper and not to be confused with modern science, which can be explained by Samkhya- Vaisheshika- Nyaaya combine provided one has a proper knowledge on those subjects. By proper knowledge we mean as it was interpreted by Bharadwaaja Vritti, Atri Bhaashya and Katandi of Ravan.
view post as summary
I liked your originality in desribing various issues in physics.But as far as I know,both theories of Relativity are tested in various experiments to precision.So I dont want to comment on your views on them.
In fourth para from bottom,you are saying that 'since other particles are subject to different forces in the local field, they move differently'.Is the force you are reffering to gravitation? Here I want to make my stand clear.In gravitational field,particles (quantum) of different masses are subjected to different forces but their 'acceleration' is the same.So according to the second law of QG,which I have stated,all particles will have the same 'energy' (kinetic) which implies that their velocities vary according to their masses.Although,this is not the case with macroscopic test masses.It is this difference in the behaviour of quantum particles and test masses in uniform accelerated field which I have repeatedly stressed in my essay.
In the penultimate para,you have identified 'Dual nature of velocity'with acceleration and deceleration.I dont know on what basis you done so.Nor do I understand how do you identify velocity with Non-Duality.
In the final para,the spirit in which I have used the word 'Advaitha' is misunderstood by you.According to Advaitha,'Brahman'is the ultimate reality and like-wise QG field is the ultimate reality in the physical universe.
Thanks for your comments on my essay and I will go thro' your essay soon and express my views on it.
Best regards and good luck.
Sreenath B N.
report post as inappropriate
Truth has no variants and palatable benevolence is a rarity. Blind acceptance of something in the face of apparent contradictions is nothing but superstitions. Running away from something when faced with a challenge is cowardice. Hence kindly do not discredit yourself by refusing to face the truth. This is harming the cause of science. There are many manipulated experiments to...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Truth has no variants and palatable benevolence is a rarity. Blind acceptance of something in the face of apparent contradictions is nothing but superstitions. Running away from something when faced with a challenge is cowardice. Hence kindly do not discredit yourself by refusing to face the truth. This is harming the cause of science. There are many manipulated experiments to verify the statements of relativity. One of them is the verification of time dilation using atomic clocks. The documents still available in the archives prove our statement. Then there are many other concepts like gravity waves, which have not been detected even after about a century, but billions of dollars are spent in research to locate it and thousands of people using this concept in their research work including doctoral thesis. We consciously use the word manipulated and challenge anyone to prove us wrong. We are not the only one to hold this view. There are plenty of other scientists who hold the same view. In fact there are some sites exclusively devoted to this topic. Taking an ostrich like view to those findings is nothing but superstition. We have given our views above. If you can, please go ahead and prove us wrong.
However, we profusely thank you for raising a very important question and giving us a chance to prove it. This is relating to gravity and acceleration.
Before we discuss whether the force we were referring to was gravity, we will like to discuss something about force itself. A force is experienced only in a field (we call it rayi). Thus, it is a conjugate of the field. If something is placed in a field, it experiences something else. This something else is a kind of force. Depending upon the density variations of the field, we experience the force differently. Hence we call it by different names. While the field is one, the forces are many. Since they are conjugates, we can also say that different forces create different variations in the field.
The basic nature of the field is equilibrium. The basic nature of forces is displacement. This gives rise to two different types of inertia: inertia of motion due to forces and inertia of restoration (elasticity) due to the field. This leads to both these inertia acting against a point of equilibrium. In such a scenario, the combined effect leads to confinement around the point of equilibrium. The confined structure is called particle. Thus, all particles have a central point of mass or nucleus, an extra nuclear field surrounding it and fixed orbitals confining it. This is the common feature of all particles be they quarks or the Cosmos. The confinement may also cover the field without the central point. This is caused due to non-linear interaction of the forces. We will describe the mechanism separately. In such a case the field behaves like a fluid. The latest finding of LHC is that the Universe was created from such a super-fluid and not gases. The confined field also interacts with the Universal field due to difference in density. This in turn modifies the nature of interactions at different points in the medium (Universal field).
A force can act only between two particles as only a particle can influence the field, which in turn can be experienced by another particle. If the external force of the field is more than the confining force of the two particles, then the two particles break up and join to form a new particle. We call this “sambhuti”. In the opposite case, the two particles experience the force without being internally affected. The force acts between the centers’ of mass of each treating each as a point particle. We call it “bibhuti”. This second category of relationship, which we call “udyaama”, is known as gravity. Since it stabilizes the two bodies at the maximum permissible distance between them depending upon their respective masses, we call it “urugaaya pratisthaa”. For reasons to be discussed separately, this is possible only if gravity is treated as a composite force.
The first category of forces, which are interactions between two bodies, acts differently based on proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance – proximity and distance – distance variables. We call these relationships “antaryaama”, “vahiryaama”, “upayaama” and “yaatayaama” respectively. This interaction affects the field also inducing various local disturbances. These disturbances are known as “nitya gati”, “yagnya gati”, “samprasaada gati” and “saamparaaya gati” respectively. Any particle entering the field at those points feels these disturbances, which are known as the strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively. Thus, you can see that gravity belongs to a completely different group of forces and cannot be integrated with other fundamental forces of Nature in the normal process. Yet, it has a different function by which other forces can be derived from it. We will discuss that separately.
Ever since Newton propagated his second law, acceleration has been highly misunderstood by the scientific community. Before we give a proper explanation for the mechanism of acceleration, let us analyze the equation F = ma.
Without any qualifying word, F here is to be understood as any imprest force. The function of a force is to displace bodies from their position. The force can be impressed by a source only. After the force is impressed, the body is displaced. Thereafter, its contact with the source is cut off. Now the body moves with inertia, which remains constant in the absence of any other force. Thus, the equation should have been F = mv.
There may be occasions where the source impressing the force moves with the body. One example is an engine pushing a train or a cab. Here after the initial displacement, inertia takes over. But, the friction with the rail or the road retards the velocity. The force, which is moving in the same direction, again comes in contact with the body and again pushes it. This leads to a continuous change of velocity, the rate of which is called acceleration. But as can be seen, another force of friction is acting to generate acceleration, which has not been included in the equation. Thus, the mathematical form of Newton’s second law is wrong.
To understand the true nature of acceleration, we have to understand wave motion. A wave is a disturbance in a fluid medium where the particles transfer the momentum only. This implies that the particles in a field are displaced temporarily and due to inertia of restoration (elasticity), regain their position and are subjected to the same force. Since fluid mediums do not have a strong confinement like solids, each particle pushes the others over a field leading to a chain reaction, which goes on repeating. The pushed particle, which was at rest, pushes the first particle back canceling half of its impact and transferring the other half to the next particle. We call this motion as “kampa”. Since this transfer of energy involves over a field covering the amplitude of the wave and is further modified by the density (which is related to mass per unit volume) of the medium, the equation for momentum is ½ mv^2 at every point (most text books give a wrong explanation of this phenomenon).
Now, imagine a situation where the impressed force overcomes the inertia of restoration. The particle is displaced fully and in turn it displaces the next particle. There will be a reaction as above, but the rate of change of velocity will be reduced gradually. The particle will come to rest after sometime. Since the original particle will be going back to the source after sometime, the end particle will be subjected to a similar force in a chain repeatedly. We call this phenomenon “chiti”. This last particle in a “chiti” then acts as a center of mass for other interactions. This finally leads to the formation of a structure because, as we have explained earlier, all structures have a center of mass surrounded by the extra-nuclear field and confined by orbits.
When you say: “In gravitational field, particles (quantum) of different masses are subjected to different forces but their 'acceleration' is the same”, what it means is that if particles of different masses float on a river, irrespective of their mass, their velocity remains the same. Similarly, if people of different mass board a flight or a train, irrespective of their mass, their velocity remains the same. The explanation is that with reference to their frame of reference, they are all at rest. We posit that it is the field that is moving and what we see as the uniform velocity is the relative rest position of the particles of different mass in the same frame of reference like the different pebbles that show through a running wave in a sea beach. You cannot describe these phenomena as “all particles will have the same 'energy'”, because it is the energy of the field and not the particle that you are describing.
Reference to the “'Dual nature of velocity' with acceleration and deceleration” can be understood in the context of “sambhuti” and its opposite mechanism, which we call “vinaash”, where the particle experience the force that internally affect it to break up into its constituents. It is different from “bibhuti”, where the two particles experience the force without being internally affected.
If you say: "According to Advaitha,'Brahman'is the ultimate reality", you have to define Brahman and show his characteristics as equal to "QG field", which according to you, "is the ultimate reality in the physical universe".
view post as summary