INERTIAL MASS IS ONLY APPARENT AND NOT REAL

We could not find any experiment that directly proves inertial mass increase, though it has been inferred from some experiments. But there are alternative explanations for those observations. Like other forces, we experience mass through the effect it produces on others. This is the difference between the body (dimension) and it’s mass. While energy creates temperature variation, mass creates pressure variation. Both are related to the body. Inertial mass is a mass parameter giving the inertial resistance to acceleration of the body as determined by its momentum, when it is subjected to a force that is not due to gravity. It is found by applying a known force to an unknown mass, measuring the acceleration, and applying Newton's Second Law, m = F/a. If the same body with the same mass is displaced with application of different energy, its effect (a) would appear as different in proportion to the applied force (F), i.e., with mass constant, F varies with a. Thus, in principle, it need not be mass variation, but can appear so due to energy variation.

Switching over from Cyclotron to Synchrotron is not based on observational necessity, but based on difference between relativistic and non-relativistic theories. They are two different theories independent of each other. The variation factor γ proposed in SR is a mathematical structure apparent to the observer and not real to the physical structure being observed. This difference is generally not recognized - mostly by the brane-world proponents. Unlike three dimensional physical structures, mathematical structures are two dimensional. The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit (a circle with a moving center), but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on.

The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make these structures abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to circular logic. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance – linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation. Hence, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.

Perception is related to physical structures. The field created by the content of our eye interacts with similar fields created by other objects measuring those in the process. They are not two dimensional like the impressions on a photographic plate, but three dimensional like a mould, i.e., a shaped cavity that is used to give a definite form to fluid or plastic material including radiation that behave like fluids. Thus, we see three dimensional objects. The photographic plate on the other hand represents the mathematical structure in two dimensions. Thus, it is an abstraction, which is not physical.

While there is no direct evidence of increase in inertial mass, there are many experiments to conclusively show that the ratio of gravitational mass to inertial mass is constant. Gravity is said to be an attractive force, i.e., the force applied by one body brings the other body towards it, i.e., towards the direction of the applied force. Inertia displaces the body in the direction opposite to the direction of the applied force. Since both the displacements in opposite directions are known to be equivalent, this implies that the concept of inertial mass is only apparent like a mirage and can not be real.

SR, GR, EXTRA DIMENSIONS & BLACK HOLES & MORE

SR, GR, EXTRA DIMENSIONS, BLACK HOLES & MORE

CORRESPONDENCE WITH DR. H. WEHRLI

There are lot of talk about indiscernibles.The propositional logic A = A is still valid, because A is not the same as the object, but the defining characteristic of the object. More than one object can have the same characteristic. Otherwise the number sequence would be impossible, as it defines more than one similar object. If the As are always distinct, temporally or spatially, they would not be different, but the same. Yet, chirality, which is a distinctly different characteristic, is also true.

It is true that infinity is not perceivable fully. It is like one – without similars, with the exception that while the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not fully perceptible. Space and time are examples of infinity. They are perceptible as without similars. If infinity is not perceptible, you would not have even mentioned it. Einstein never defined anything conclusively. He always gave an operational definition that suited him. Your examples of pi, e, sqrt(2) have characteristics of infinity in a limited way, because while we cannot know their precise value, we know that it lies between two known values – hence not infinite. Thus, we chose a value of these as precise as we require. However, a similar argument is not possible for space and time at the universal scale.

Event is a type of interaction involving mass and energy and reality includes objects with matter. Thus, the usual four entities in physics, i.e. space, time, matter and interactions cannot be replaced by the term event alone. Process is a chain of events.

MILKY-WAY MASS: The paper uses two assumptions: the dark-matter hallow and the gravitational effect of Milky Way on Leo I, both of which can be misleading. Firstly, there is no clear cut view regarding what constitutes dark matter. The galaxy-rotation problem may actually be a questionable concept – especially with the discovery of the “axis of evil” which shows that the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the so-called afterglow of the big bang, is not perfectly smooth and hot and cold spots speckle the sky. These spots are not quite as randomly distributed as they first appeared - they align in a pattern that point out a special direction in space.

The so-called “huge hallow of dark matter” could be something else like the “magnetic highway” that is expected to lead Voyager-1 out of the heliosphere.

The gravitational effect of Milky Way on Leo I may be as misleading as the others. The planets in the solar system are also gravitationally affecting each other and sometimes appear to move away and at other times coming closer to each other while orbiting the Sun. We have repeatedly asserted that this explains both dark matter and dark energy: the rotation problem and the expanding universe problem. The galaxies are orbiting the galactic center and appear to move away from each other at the present juncture. We must not forget that this 83 year old observation is insignificant in cosmic time scales and there is a possibility that both in the past and in future, an apparently reverse motion may be observed. Further, the expansion is restricted to large galactic clusters only and not at all perceptible in local scales. This puts a question mark on the assumption that the universe is expanding – especially when we do not know the contours of the universe. Thus, there is no need to sensationalize it. Scientists should be down to Earth and objective.

You are right that time is independent of observers. However, for any particular space, time may or may not be at now, because the designation of time as “now” depends on the observer. When the observer perceives, it is now for him. Since the observer has a fixed position at any given instant, the now is also related to position. But it is true for all positions making now a variable. Hence you are correct that everyone's consciousness is at now regardless of the space they are at. However, unlike position, which is static, time is dynamic – flowing continuously from now to future relegating now to past continuously. Only past and future have longer duration than now. Now is instantaneous. Hence it may not be proper to say that for any particular space, time is at now. Further, space and time are intrinsically related as space orders the arrangement of objects and time orders the changes in objects in space. Yet, both are independent of each other as they show different characteristics. Unlike time-evolution, there is no spatial evolution: it can only be accumulation or reduction of objects (not space) in time. Further unlike space, we cannot move backwards in time. The bull enters a china shop and breaks everything. The broken pieces do not assemble and arranged as the bull goes backwards.

You are right that “space time is not instantaneous with regard to light or sound”. It is because light and sound are different kinds of waves moving in space in time. Without motion, neither light nor sound would be perceptible. Thus they cannot be instantaneous. 

Time travel, as it is commonly understood, is not possible because all motions in time are forward temporal motions only. Yet, all measurements show the state of objects as they were in a designated past. Thus, it describes the position and its state of temporal evolution of the past. In a sense it is also traveling backwards in time.

Space describes the order of arrangement of objects and time describes the order of arrangement of events, i.e., the changes in objects. Both co-exist independent of each other. An object placed in space does not change the space or its space in time. It only gets transformed in time. That is temporal evolution, which does not depend on the space. An object will evolve in the same manner irrespective of the space it occupies. Yet, both space and time being infinite, cannot be separated from each other as no mathematics is possible with infinities. The manipulations called renormalization are not mathematically valid, as it fails the test of logical consistency. Thus, while the space-time fabric is true, motion has nothing to do with it. Motion comes into existence with the application of force, which generates a chain reaction (which may appear as evolution), which may affect time evolution. However, it is different from time evolution, which can occur even while the object is relatively at rest in its space.

When you are describing “space as the sum of all points and the point as an infinitely small place in space”, you must consider whether you are talking about mathematical space or physical space. The time evolutions depict rate of change. When such change is related to motion; like velocity, acceleration, etc, it implies total displacement from the position occupied by the body in space and moving to the adjacent position. This process is repeated due to inertia till it is modified by the introduction of other forces. Thus, these are discrete steps in space that can be related to three dimensional structures only. Mathematics measures only the numbers of these steps, the distances involved including amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc. Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph – the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space as described below.

The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance – linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.

There is no fundamental difference between our concepts of physics and mathematics. Only you have used different words to express the same idea. However, we beg to differ on the meaning of definition. We define an object or a concept by observing some intrinsic characteristics of the objects related to the concept. These descriptions can be proper (the same at all times and places under similar conditions) or improper. If it is improper, then it is a wrong definition. Otherwise it is the correct definition. For example, if you define space as “the sum of all points and the point as an infinitely small place in space”, the definition is circular – hence unclear. Further, if the space is the sum of all points, then points are fundamental. In that case, you must define how they are held together. If you define a point as “an infinitely small place in space”, you must admit that space is more fundamental than points and all pervasive. We agree with this part of your definition. Hence we define space as the universal base, which orders the interval between objects. These intervals can be called vacuum, but one has to be careful.

The word vacuum has always been used to mean “the thing that is not material or particulate”. By definition, the vacuum is supposed to be nothing, but often it is used to mean something. This is a contradiction because it begs the paradox of Parmenides: If the vacuum is composed of virtual particle pairs, then it no longer is the vacuum: it is matter. If everything is matter, then we have a plenum in which motion is impossible. Calling this matter “virtual” is camouflage. When required to be transparent, treat it as nothing and when it is required to have physical characteristics (like polarity), treat it as something! Defining something as both x and non-x is not physics.

There is no surprise that the equations of QCD remain unsolved at energy scales relevant for describing atomic nuclei! The various terms of QCD like “color”, “flavor”, the strangeness number (S) and the baryon number (B) etc, are not precisely defined and cannot be mechanically assigned. Even spin cannot be mechanically assigned for quarks except assigning a number. The quantum spin is said to be not real since quarks are point like and cannot spin. If quarks cannot spin, how does chirality and symmetry apply to them at this level? How can a point express chirality and how can a point be either symmetrical or non-symmetrical? If W bosons that fleetingly mediate particles have been claimed to leave their foot-prints, quarks should be more stable! But single quarks have never been seen in bubble chambers, ionization chambers, or any other experiments. We will explain the mechanism of spin (1/6 for quarks) to show that it has macro equivalents and that spin zero means absence of spin – which implies only mass-less energy transfer.

Your observation that: “space, time, mass (substance, energy) and interaction are never directly perceivable as such and therefore not real” are interesting. We agree that space and time are only intervals between objects that arise due to our perception of comparative sequence (far and near or former and later) and thus, have no physical presence. They are described only by the alternative symbolism of the objects (space) and events (time) respectively through an easily intelligible and repetitive cross section that is called the scaling constant or the unit. Mass is also not perceived directly because our brain has different regions dedicated exclusively to different forms of sensory perception, such as sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. In the past three decades studies in psychology and neuroscience have revealed that the brain is an extensively multi-sensory organ that constantly melds information from the various senses. When we “see” an object, what actually happens is that the field set up by our eyes interacts with the field set up by the object emitting electromagnetic radiation. These radiations emanate from the object, but they are not the same as the mass of the object. Thus, we cannot “see” mass. We can only “touch” it, where the radiation emanated by it is totally cut off. Since these two perceptions by themselves are different, we have two different perceptions of color and hardness. Since we can only perceive multi-sensory functions, we cannot perceive these individually. Thus, what we “see” is not what we “touch” and vice versa. To this extent, mass is not directly perceptible. Energy does not have colors nor fixed dimensions. Hence we cannot “see” energy directly. We can only feel its effect by “touch” or “see” its effects on objects with mass. To this extent, energy is not directly perceptible. Interactions are effect of energy on mass. Hence it is also not directly perceptible.

Earlier we have discussed space and time to show that they are perceptible only through an alternative symbolism of the objects (space) and events (time) respectively. The alternative symbolism of the objects and changes in them (events) are physical descriptions. These are not mathematical models because the concepts of space and time are infinite, which, like one, is perceived, but its full extent is not perceived, so that no number can be assigned to it. However, their different aspects or digitized segments are measured mathematically.

All sensory perceptions are not conveyed by photons – only ocular perceptions are done so. In fact, the so-called photon is also described using alternative symbolism. What we describe as the photon is the background structure of space disturbed by the energy traveling through it by transfer of momentum. Thus, the speed of light is background variant – it slows down in denser mediums. We follow the trajectory of the momentum transfer and call it photon through alternative symbolism of position. That is how the photon is said to have zero rest mass. If there is no momentum transfer, the background structure is undisturbed and is not perceptible, as perception is possible only during transition. Also, the objects entering that space do not experience any force. This is zero energy, which is said to be zero mass. The color depends upon the density of the background structure, which affects the wave length of the so-called photon like the color of water and ice. We see the contrasting colors through the interaction with similar fields only in our eyes. Thus, a born blind has no sense of color. The double-slit experiment conforms this description of photon, as what travels is not a particle which cannot travel through both slits, but only momentum transfer in a background structure through two slits. The background structure spreads in both sides of the partition like water flowing through two channels and the films record the interactions that travel through different slits.

Regarding SR, we have already pointed out that the problem with Einstein and others is that they do not give precise scientific definitions of the terms used by them, but always give operational definitions, which can be manipulated to suit one’s convenience. For example, in his SR paper of 30-06-1905, he used clock A as a reference clock to synchronize the clocks at B and C. Yet, immediately thereafter, he denied the existence of any privileged frame of reference. A similar proposition can be seen in his method of measurement of a moving rod. We quote Einstein:

“(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”, or

(b) “By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a clock in the moving frame, 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 the length of the rod”

The method described at (b) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device 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 recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift.Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

The same goes for his statement: "space and time are not aspects of reality but at most, questionable mathematical models in which we think." He has not precisely defined reality. We have already sent you our definition of reality.

Relativity is an operational concept, but not an existential concept. The equations apply to data and not to particles. When we approach a mountain from a distance, its volume appears to increase. What this means is that the visual perception of volume (scaling up of the angle of incoming radiation) changes at a particular rate. But locally, there is no such impact on the mountain. It exists as it was. The same principle applies to the perception of objects with high velocities. The changing volume is perceived at different times depending upon our relative velocity. If we move fast, it appears earlier. If we move slowly, it appears later. Our differential perception is related to changing angles of radiation and not the changing states of the object. It does not apply to locality. Einstein has also admitted this. But the Standard model treats these as absolute changes that not only change the perceptions, but change the particle also! For all these reasons, SR, the concept of length contraction and inertial mass are all wrong. The equation e=mc^2 that was first postulated by Poincare mathematically is valid to the extent that if mass varies, energy density also varies proportionately. They are not interchangeable. You can try it with one gram of carbon. The equation fails.

Your concept of information flow is valid and chirality is inherent in it. However, your statement “the information flow is ordered in the direction from the object to the subject”, has to be treated cautiously for two reasons. First, being uni-directional, it goes against the concept of chirality. Second, the information flow is a two-way affair. First the observer wants to “know” some aspect of the observable, for which he directs the field generated by the concerned sense organs; (eyes for color and form perception, ear for sound perception, etc.) or measuring instruments, towards the object. If it interacts with the field generated by the observable, the information is relayed back to the observer. When the various information received from all sense organs are compiled in the brain, it is compared with the stored memory, which leads to perception. Lot of information is lost in the process, which brings in the uncertainty (not chaos). Unfortunately, the multidisciplinary approach has been abandoned for reductionism, which has increased the uncertainty considerably hindering progress of science.

There is a general misconception about dimensions. Scientists often confuse direction with dimension. Dimension is the perception of differentiation of the "outer space" of an object from its "inner space". This describes the "form" of the object. Since "form" is perceived through electromagnetic radiation where the electric field and the magnetic field move perpendicular to each other, which is perpendicular to the direction of motion, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. The extra-dimensions, which have remained elusive for over a century, are a myth. One dimension implies length, two dimension area and three dimensions volume. One dimension implies right-left, two dimension include forward-backward in addition (clockwise and counter-clockwise included) and three dimensions include up-down. Since time is not "space – inner or outer", it cannot have “form” and hence cannot be a dimension.

Though the positive and negative charges show chiral symmetry, it cannot be clubbed with dimensions, as dimension refers to fixed “forms”, whereas charge always tries to distribute itself uniformly, which tends to bring uniformity – not symmetry. Symmetry provides the chirality of objects and not forces.  When you talk about mirror image, you are referring to objects and not forces, as energy does not have chirality, but equilibrium.  The apparent chiral symmetry of the positive and negative charges comes from their complimentary nature: positive charges always remain at the center (nucleus) and accumulate; whereas negative charges always stay outside the center and confine the positive charges. To do so, the negative charge has to be slightly higher. This has been proved in many recent findings. However, being directed towards the nucleus, it is not experienced outside. If you look at a container, the contained is the positive charge and the container itself is the negative charge. The only difference from ordinary containers is that, it is always full – the container changes according to the contained. They are always entangled and conjugate. One cannot have any meaning without the other. This conjugation and not chirality, brings in the duality and the symmetry. The reason for such conjugation is different. Chirality is only one of the manifestations of that conjugation, which plays the most fundamental and all pervasive role you ascribe to chirality.

The CPT symmetry, though true, is also much misunderstood. Parity is absolutely essential for balancing or bringing in equilibrium, which is the outcome of the conservation laws. Time evolution, and not time proper, is symmetric. But this symmetry is different from other symmetries. It is not a mirror image, but it is more of an equation – a mathematical model. Given a state of an object at a given time, we can normally predict the past and future states, which come out to be true within the constraints of uncertainty. We agree with your statement that “A mathematical structure changes, whilst something else remains unchanged”. We have already explained that all mathematical structures are al least one dimension less than physical structures. Category theory tries to bridge this gap. But mostly it overdoes it.

Regarding your: “4. To measure is to count”, we generally agree with you and have discussed elaborately in our paper on reality. Your statement: “Every kind of length unit can be derived from a time unit”, may be misleading. To measure length, which is a space component, we move in space, which takes time. However, we cannot derive space from time. Your question: “whether length of time and distance are concepts suited to physics” is valid, as these (being absolute background structures and intervals of objects and events) are strictly not physical objects, but mental constructs of alternative symbolism or mathematical modeling.

Your question: “whether physics is formulated better and simpler by a theory about counted events”, is correct. Because “knowledge” is the same as the result of measurement and measurement is nothing but the conscious process of comparison between similars. We measure length with unit length (measuring instrument), area with unit area, volume with unit volume and density with unit density, etc. Thus, the result of measurement is always counted numbers or scalar quantities. Unfortunately, measurement has been associated with many weird concepts such as collapse leading to complications. As we have told earlier, all unknown states are combined together and named as superposition of states. Only the known state after measurement at here-now gives us a value. This does not mean that collapse brings the object into a fixed state, because by the time we know the result of measurement, the object has further evolved in time bringing in uncertainty. This has been misunderstood and often it is said that each information transfer from one object to another changes both objects.

The concept of the “chronometric convention” is a misleading interpretation of time evolution and the “geometric convention” is an arbitrary arrangement based on easily intelligible and repetitive characteristic. Thus, it is true that the length of a distance is independent of the location. The real problem with measurement can be seen from the following paradox.

Once a famous scientist directed two of his students to precisely measure the wave-length of sodium light. Both students returned with different results – one resembling the normally accepted value and the other a different value. Upon enquiry, the other student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the accepted value, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, for precision measurement he applied length contraction to the scale treating the star Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. The scientist told him to treat the scale and the object to be measured as moving with the same velocity 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 sodium light is infinite. To a surprised scientist, 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 sodium light!

You have equated chirality to “the duality of all being”. This may be highly misleading. While chiral symmetry is the mirror image, it may be different from complimentarity or duality. Space and time are inseparable conjugates. But they are not chiral.

Regarding curvature of space, we remind you of our definition of space. Newton thought that the Earth, the tree with the apple and the intermediate space are fixed. Gravity pulls the apple down over space. Einstein said, the Earth and the tree with the apple are fixed, but the intermediate space “curved”, so that the space between the apple and Earth are reduced with a complimentary expansion of the space between the apple and the tree. He got the idea while observing his teacher trying to solve the problem of the curvature of metal sheets when heated. However, the analogy is totally misplaced. The metal sheets curved when subjected to the external agency of heat. In the case of the apple, what is the agency? Further, if the space curved, why did it pull down only the apple and not everything near it? Thirdly, it increased the space between the apple and the tree. This makes gravity a conjugate force of two equal but oppositely directed forces. We agree with the third description. Since the interaction involves three different agencies: the Earth, the apple and the tree, we hold dual interaction in each position, making gravity a force with 3 complementary parts. With the initial force that started the interaction, we treat gravity as a composite force of seven.

Equivalence is not a first principle of physics, as is often stated, but merely an ad hoc metaphysical concept designed to induce the uninitiated to imagine that gravity has magical non-local powers of infinite reach. We have an ancient text, which discussed the equivalence principle and discarded it as wrong description of facts. It is surprisingly similar to the Russell’s paradox in Set Theory: If S is the set of all sets which do not have themselves as a member, is S a member of itself?

Inside a spacecraft in deep space, objects behave like suspended particles in a fluid or like the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Usually, they are relatively stationary in the medium unless some other force acts upon them. This is because of the relative distribution of mass inside the spacecraft and its dimensional volume that determines the average density at each point inside the spacecraft. Further the average density of the local medium of space is factored into in this calculation. The light ray from outside can be related to the space craft only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing both the space emitting light and the spacecraft. If the passengers could observe the scene outside the space-craft, they will notice this difference and know that the space craft is moving. In that case, the reasons for the apparent curvature will be known. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the space craft, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside the space craft. The emission of the ray will be restricted to those emanating from within the spacecraft. In that case, the ray will move straight inside the space craft. In either case, the description of Einstein is faulty. Thus, both SR and GR including the principles of equivalence are wrong descriptions of reality. Hence all mathematical derivatives built upon these wrong descriptions are also wrong. We will explain all so-called experimental verifications of the SR and GR by alternative mechanisms or other verifiable explanations.

We have already explained in our earlier post that mathematical structures are at least one dimension less than physical structures and that a point in mathematics is not the same as a point in space. You are correct that there is no space to provide a background for the point. But that is true for mathematical point. Physically we can always describe any point in space. Whitehead’s definition of point is an oxymoron: if it has no geometrical element in it, it cannot be a geometrical element. A geometrical element must have geometrical characteristics. It is absurd to say that an atom has no atomic characteristic. When you describe a non-zero distance as number 1, you are referring to the scaling constant that is treated as a unit. Obviously, the distance scale does not include direction. However, if you take three points x, y and z, then direction automatically comes in. We have done some work in this area and have published a book. You may get it free of cost by sending your full postal address.

When you say: “If no point lies between the other two, the three points form a triangle, whose sides all have the length 1”, you describe the area between an equilateral triangle. Otherwise, the three points indicate three unrelated points in three dimensional physical space or two dimensional mathematical space on a paper. When you impute direction to the sides, you imply the locus of one point or the other, which is possible and proportional to an applied force. Your further arguments have to be viewed in this light along with the source and magnitude of the applied force.

Regarding neutrino and antineutrino, the symmetry is clear: antineutrino comes in and absorbed while neutrinos go out. The path reversal explains their chirality. Their so-called mass difference is actually energy difference, which can be explained by the temperature differential between the particles they interact with. These particles are evident only at different energy levels.

We have already explained that dimension describes the "form", which is perceived through electromagnetic radiation where the electric field and the magnetic field move perpendicular to each other, which is perpendicular to the direction of motion. Thus, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions.

Black holes are marked by their signature release of x-ray radiation. Unlike gamma rays, x-rays are released from the negatively charged part of the object. Thus, the abundance of x-rays indicates abundance of negatively charged component. Since negative charge flows from periphery towards the center, they are not visible outside the periphery – hence black. Since it moves inwards, it is a hole. Thus, black hole! GR has nothing to do with it.

ORIGIN OF MOON THEORIES

Recently, there has been much discussion regarding the theory of the origin of the Moon. The dominant theory emerging is the giant collision theory. But there are many problems with this theory also. We show that all these theories are wrong.

If we look at the chemical composition of the Sun’s surface, we find the dominant element is hydrogen – 71 percent. In the case of Earth’s crust, it is oxygen – 46.6 percent. But what about the Moon? Yes; it is covered with silicate like Earth. But what about hydrogen, helium and oxygen? It is totally different. The Earth’s core is composed of mostly molten iron. The Moon a small iron core perhaps 300 km in radius, with a temperature of about 1500 K, too cool to melt the rock, surrounded by a soft asthenosphere that do not permit S-waves, implying it must be plastic. The Mare covers of the moon are less reflective than the “highlands” as a result of their iron-rich compositions, and hence appear dark to the naked eye. The maria cover about 16 percent of the lunar surface, mostly on the near-side visible from Earth. The few maria on the far-side are much smaller, residing mostly in very large craters. The Near side has more mare: 32% of its surface is mare covered compared with 2% of the far side (globally mare cover 17%).

There is interesting similarities between the Moon and the Mercury. If the crust of Moon is heated enough, it will resemble the crust of Mercury. There are many other similarities between the two like only one side of their surface is always faced towards their principal body, strength of magnetosphere, etc. Thus, the theories of the origin of Moon are all wrong. The origin of Mercury is linked to the origin of Moon. Both were formed neither due to impact of two bodies (it will impossible for Mercury), not due to collision or split. Their formation should be linked to the conservation laws. While the cosmic background temperature is very low, it is very high at the stars and galaxies. Thus, the accumulation of high temperature bodies are linked to a corresponding process of evolution of low temperature bodies following the conservation laws. Both have the same source of origin – cosmic nebulae.

ON CONSCIOUSNESS

It is interesting to note that a group of neuroscientists convening at Cambridge University signed a document on 07-07-2012, officially declaring that non-human animals, “including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses” are conscious. It is not a path breaking discovery, but telling the obvious. We wonder why they left out plants. They also function similarly and respond to touch (hand or sun-light or musical sound). True, because of their rigid cell structure, they do not have locomotion, but in all other aspects they are as conscious as human beings.

The basic division between plants, all other living beings except humans, and humans is in the flow pattern of food and energy in their systems. The flow in plants is directed “upwards” – from root to tip. In the animals etc, it is sideways. Only in humans, it is top-down. Human beings are the only living beings that can copulate in their normal posture facing each other. All others have to bend.

Before asserting that: “Consciousness, indeed, has to exist in a rudimentary form in all particles of matter. To put it another way, particles of matter must be a form of consciousness”, one must precisely and scientifically define what is consciousness. In that case, it will be noticed that the material particles by themselves are inert, plants and other animals exhibit a mixed character and only human beings are conscious. Because only human beings can plan for the future, whereas others respond to situations based on their memory. Memory is not the same as consciousness, because it is about remembering the result of past observation of objects when they come in contact with other similar objects – hence object centric, whereas consciousness is about not only observation of objects, but about the mechanism of observation also even in the absence of objects - hence observation centric. Hence only humans can plan their actions meticulously.

There are two more differences. The plants have only one sense organ – touch. The birds, etc that are born out of eggs are deficient in one of the sense organs. The others except human beings have five sensory organs, but they are not balanced – some function exceedingly well, whereas others are deficient. Only in humans, they are balanced.

Voluntary motion differentiates conscious from the inert. Hence the agency of motion classifies the evolutionary state of a living being. The virus and bacteria have numerous projections on their body that act like “legs”. Hence they are at the bottom of the evolutionary cycle. Gradually the centipede, the sixteen legged, the ten, eight, six, four legged evolve. Finally the human beings with two legs evolve. This puts them at the top of the evolutionary table. Monkeys, who generally are four legged, can walk in two legs and use their fore legs as hands. Hence, they came immediately before humans. It is not correct that humans evolved from monkeys, as by this time there would have been no monkeys. In any case, we refuse to accept that our fore fathers were monkeys.

In a recent experiment concerning a man missing huge portions of his cerebral cortex, it was thought that he would lose at least some of his self-awareness. Patient R, also known as Roger, defies that expectation. Roger is a 57-year-old man who suffered extensive brain damage in 1980 after a severe bout of herpes simplex encephalitis—inflammation of the brain caused by the herpes virus. The disease destroyed most of Roger’s insular cortex, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), all brain regions thought to be essential for self-awareness. About 10 percent of his insula remains and only one percent of his ACC. Roger cannot remember much of what happened to him between 1970 and 1980 and he has great difficulty forming new memories. He cannot taste or smell either. But he still knows who he is—he has a sense of self. He recognizes himself in the mirror and in photographs. To most people, Roger seems like a relatively typical man who does not act out of the ordinary.

Regarding the above experiments, it should be noted that the first is a mental function that acts mechanically. Like the matter particles have inertia, thought is the inertia of mind, as it is generated after the perception of some object that starts the memory of similar perceptions. Like ineria is destroyed due to contact with air, or any other obstruction, thought is destroyed due to pain, knowledge about the object or finding the object. Hence it is an inertia.

Since inertia including thought are mechanical functions, memory is also a mechanical function. However, consciousness is the "I" content in any perception. In all perceptions, it appears in similar ways, indicating its difference from conscious functions.

In the experiment, the person with brain damage could not remember past events because the inertia of thought that was based on stored information was damaged due to hardware malfunction. But consciousness or self-awareness is not hardware malfunction. Hence, both are not related.

A DIFFERENT CONCEPT OF GRAVITY

Gravity is not like magnetism that attracts one mass towards another mass under specific conditions. It is because gravity is not directly related to mass, but to moving mass – to momentum, which is a product of velocity and mass. Thus, the relationship between gravity and mass is not straight forward. The velocity factor of the bodies arises due to energy but often this factor is either overlooked or misinterpreted. After all, the equations, by themselves, are meaningless signs. They have to be interpreted. The gravitational force on the left hand side of the equation is not the only force. It is an additional force that only changes the existing force balance. The curvature of spacetime can change to appear as gravity only when there is change in its local density, which is possible only due to the appearance of an additional force (energy or mass) in the local field. This changes the velocity components of bodies and links gravity to momentum and adjusts the distance (due to changing density).

When the relative velocity between the two bodies is zero, i.e., when the bodies are at rest with reference to each other, assuming no other force is present, the spacetime curvature of the local medium should also be non-changing. Thus, gravity should either be not evident or adjust itself to the distance between the bodies (masses being constant). From the movements of planets around stars in more or less fixed orbits, we know that gravity is present and that it provides the angular momentum. From the measurements of acceleration due to gravity of the same body from different heights, we know that gravity adjusts itself to the distance (though other factors are present, this factor cannot be ignored). There is no reason to believe that it does not happen in space. The planetary orbits wobble because within the closed solar system, distribution of mass is constantly changing due to the differential movement of the planets (like different height in the case of acceleration due to gravity). Yet, over long periods, the wobbling irons itself out. This leads to the following inferences:

1.     Gravity is not an attractive force like the electromagnetic interaction (that redistributes charge symmetrically which appears as attractive or correspondingly repulsive forces), but is a balancing or stabilizing force like a chemical reaction (that redistributes the components violating local symmetry).

2.     The net effect of gravity adjusts itself to changes in the local field density. This appears as the gravitational constant.

3.     The value of G cannot be universally constant, but must change according to the mean local density of the medium. For empirical reasons to be discussed later, it should have 7 values for structure formation and 11 sets of values for displacement.

4.     The gravitational interaction between two bodies is related to angular momentum of the smaller body and the spin of the bigger body. This is the reason why the mathematics of both spin and angular momentum are identical - you compare left with right or right with left, the result is same.

5.     Maxwell’s equations are background invariant. Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. Transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. Since light is a transverse wave, it is background invariant. The so-called non-interacting dark energy is the background structure. Mr. Einstein’s ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell’s Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the non-observance of aether drag (as observed in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove the aether model.

6.     The universe is not expanding or accelerating, as it is not evident at local galactic scales or less. Had the universe being expanding, such expansion would have been evident in local scales also. Even a spot on the balloon expands. Distant galaxies are rotating around a common galactic center and like the velocities of planets far away from the Sun, their velocities are relatively greater. We can visualize it as a potter’s wheel. Compared to a point relatively nearer to the galactic center, the distant objects appear to be moving faster. Since it is a circular orbit, at times they appear as receding (atichaara) while at other times they will appear as approaching (vakra). The measured time span is insignificant in cosmic scales.

All displacements are associated with generation of heat energy. But all interactions are not associated with high energy. The strong, weak, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration are associated with high energy. Gravitational interaction is associated with low energy. Hence they belong to two different classes.

Interaction involves two bodies. They are brought together by a force that may place them in proximity with each other or regulate their distance. We explain the strong force by a mechanism called “chiti”, which literally means consolidation. The proximity-proximity variables give rise to the so-called strong interaction that bring the centre of mass and the boundary towards each other confining them (we call such interactions. While discussing Coulomb’s law, we will show that contrary to popular belief, charge interaction in all emission fields takes place in four different ways. Two positively charged particles interact by exploding. But it is not so for interaction between two negatively charged particles. Otherwise there would be no electricity. The strong force holds the positively charged particles together. Their interaction process generates spin. We will discuss this mechanism while describing spin. Proximity-distance variables generate weak interaction where only the boundary shifts. This process also gives rise to angular momentum. Both strong forces and weak forces consolidate two particles. While the strong force consolidates it fully, the weak force consolidates both partially.

Distance-proximity variables generate electromagnetic interaction where the bound field interacts with the centre of mass of other particles. The modern view that messenger photons mediate electromagnetic interaction is erroneous, as the photon field cannot create electricity or magnetism without the presence of an ion field. The photons must drive electrons or positive ions in order to create the forces of electricity and magnetism. Normally, the mass-less photons cannot create macro-fields on their own. Further, since photon is said to be its own anti-particle, how does the same particle cause both attraction and repulsion? Earlier we had pointed out at the back-ground structure and its relationship with universal constants. When minimal energy moves through the universal back-ground structure, it generates light. This transfer of momentum is known as the photon. Since the density of the universal back-ground structure is minimum; the velocity of light is the maximum.

Distance-distance variables generate radioactive disintegration that leads to a part of the mass from the nucleus to be ejected in beta decay to be coupled with a negatively charged particle. We will explain the mechanism separately.

Gravity between two bodies balances or stabilizes their orbits based on the mass-energy distribution over an area at the maximum possible distance. It is mediated by the field that balances or stabilizes the bodies in proportion to their dimensional density over the area. Thus, it belongs to a different class where the bodies interact indirectly through the field. When it stabilizes proximally, it is called acceleration due to gravity. When it stabilizes at a distance, it is known as gravitation. Like the constant for acceleration due to gravity g varies from place to place, the G also varies from system to system, though it is not locally apparent. This shows that not only the four fundamental forces of Nature, but also gravitation is essential for structure formation, as without it, even the different parts of the body will not exist in a stable configuration.

Einsteinian space-time curvature calculations were based on vacuum, i.e. on a medium without any gravitational properties (since it has no mass). Now if a material medium is considered (which space certainly is), then it will have a profound effect on the space-time geometry as opposed to that in vacuum. It will make the gravitational constant differential for different localities.

Since space is not empty, it must have different densities at different points. The density is a function of mass and change of density is a function of energy. Thus, the equation: e = mc² does not show mass energy equivalence, but the density gradient of space. The square of velocity has no physical meaning except when used to measure an area of length and breadth equal to the distance measured by c. The above equation does not prove mass energy convertibility, but only  shows the energy requirement to spread a designated quantity of mass over a designated area, so that the mean density can be called a particular type of sub- field or jaala – as we call it.

DARK ENERGY EXPLAINED

We don’t understand the excitement relating to the so-called dark energy, which is an oxymoron. It is said to be dark because it does not reveal itself through interaction. It is smoothly distributed in the sense it doesn’t fall into galaxies and clusters, (otherwise it would have been found by studying the dynamics of those objects). It is persistent in the sense the density of dark energy (amount of energy per cubic light-year) remains approximately constant as the Universe expands. It doesn’t dilute away like matter does. Because of the last two properties, it is called energy. But how can energy not interact, yet be called energy? Can it not be explained differently? Say like a back ground structure? That will solve most problems and explain gravity, which in turn can explain the other fundamental forces of Nature. This also will explain inflation, though differently.

In the paper “Physics Beyond Standard Model”, we have described the above mechanism. The cosmic microwave background measures the total amount of energy (including matter) in the observable universe. Local measures of galaxies and clusters measure the total amount of matter. The latter turns out to be about 27% of the former, leaving 73% or so in the form of some invisible stuff that is not matter. We relate these two theoretically to 1 : π, because the inverse square law is universally verified and only a spherical field must obey the inverse square law because the density of spherical emission must fall off inversely with the distance. The only difference in this case is that there is no fall of density because the galaxies move intact and there is no evidence of their expansion. This implies that they are moving against a fixed back ground like a boat moving in a river. This creates bow-shock effect and we have shown that at a certain point, this not only overcomes the expansion, but also generates a negative pressure. This is repeated to give the impression of inflation.

We are pained to see the way the scientific community is heading. The misreporting orchestrated in the media about the so-called discovery of Higg’s boson is one of the latest fads. The problem is that scientists are behaving like the proverbial six blind men, who went to “see” an elephant. Each one touched one limb of the elephant and described the entire elephant based on his findings. Each one is correct in his description. But even after listening to all six, you cannot have any idea about what type of a creature they are talking about. But for one who has seen the elephant, all their descriptions make sense. We find the situation similar, but no one is willing to see the elephant, even when it is in sight.

HIGGS HULLABALOO

Contrary to media misreporting, there is no clear cut declaration by the LHC team that the Higgs boson has really been detected. The phrase five-sigma was tossed about by scientists to describe the strength of the discovery. Five-sigma corresponds to a p-value, or probability, of 3×10^-7, or about 1 in 3.5 million. This is not the probability that the Higgs boson does or doesn’t exist; rather, it is the probability that if the particle does not exist, the data that CERN scientists collected in Geneva, Switzerland, would be at least as extreme as what they observed. The reason that it’s so annoying is that people want to hear declarative statements, like ‘The probability that there’s a Higgs is 99.9 percent,’ but the real statement has an ‘if’ in there. There’s a conditional. There’s no way to remove the conditional. We hold that like all previous hype, this declaration will be proved to be a hoax. We present an alternative mechanism for generation of mass based not on Higgs boson, but based on the principle of chemical bonding, part of which is supported by a recently published paper in Science.

According to a report published in Science (Science 20 July 2012: Vol. 337 no. 6092 pp. 327-331 DOI: 10.1126/science.1219703); Theoretical Chemists in Norway have shown that a third type of chemical bonding in which spin-parallel hydrogen atoms or ground-state helium atoms are drawn together into pairs, can occur in the extreme magnetic fields of white dwarves and neutron stars. They used computer simulations to show that as-yet-unseen molecules could form in magnetic fields much higher than those created here on Earth. Elementary chemistry distinguishes two kinds of strong bonds between atoms in molecules: the covalent bond, where bonding arises from valence electron pairs shared between neighboring atoms, and the ionic bond, where transfer of electrons from one atom to another leads to Coulombic attraction between the resulting ions. However, real chemical bonds usually fall somewhere in between. When two atoms come together, their atomic orbitals combine to form molecular orbitals. For each two atomic orbitals combined, two molecular orbitals are formed. One of these is lower in energy than either atomic orbital and is called the bonding orbital. The other “anti-bonding” orbital is higher in energy than either atomic orbital. Whether or not the atoms will actually bond is determined by whether the total energy of the electrons in the molecular orbitals is lower than the total energy of the electrons in the original atomic orbitals. If it is, bond formation will be energetically favored and the bond will be formed.

The Pauli exclusion principle forbids a single orbital from holding more than two electrons of opposite spins. If the atomic orbital of each atom contained just one electron, both can go into the bonding orbital when the orbitals combine. Both electrons are therefore lowered in energy and the bond formation is energetically favored. But if the atomic orbitals contained two electrons each, two of the four electrons would have to go into the anti-bonding molecular orbital. Overall, therefore, two electrons would have their energy lowered by bond formation, while two electrons would have their energy raised. Under normal circumstances, the anti-bonding orbital is always raised in energy farther above the energy of the higher-energy atomic orbital than the bonding orbital is lowered below the energy of the lower-energy atomic orbital. This means that a chemical bond with both its bonding and its anti-bonding orbitals full would always have a higher energy than the atomic orbitals from which it would be formed. Such a bond would therefore not form. This is why noble-gas atoms, which have full outer atomic orbitals, almost never form molecules on Earth. But now Kai chemists at University of Oslo used a computer program developed by their group called LONDON to show this is not always true elsewhere. LONDON creates mathematical models of molecular orbitals under the influence of magnetic fields of about 10⁵ T. This is much stronger than the 30–40 T fields that can be made in laboratories and that have little effect on chemical bonds.

Large fields could be relevant to those studying astronomical objects such as white dwarves – where magnetic fields can reach 10⁵ T – and neutron stars, where fields could be as high as 10¹⁰ T. Under such conditions, the team has shown that the rules of bonding change. The Chemists postulated a third, distinct bonding mechanism: perpendicular paramagnetic bonding, generated by the stabilization of anti-bonding orbitals in their perpendicular orientation relative to an external magnetic field. In strong fields such as those present in the atmospheres of white dwarfs (on the order of 10⁵ teslas) and other stellar objects, our calculations suggest that this mechanism underlies the strong bonding of H₂ in the triplet state and of He₂ in the singlet state, as well as their preferred perpendicular orientation in the external field.

In particular, the anti-bonding orbital is lowered in energy when a diatomic molecule is subjected to a strong perpendicular magnetic field. Molecules with full bonding and anti-bonding orbitals, such as diatomic helium, can still be energetically favored. Atoms, molecules and condensed-matter systems exposed to strong magnetic fields represent a fascinating topic, and this work has added a key bonding mechanism. Interestingly, while the fields present around a white dwarf will be unachievable in a laboratory in the foreseeable future, the group’s models might be tested experimentally in an alternative way. Rydberg atoms are highly excited atoms that can be the size of the dot of an "i". Because the bond length between Rydberg atoms is so great, the Coulomb interaction is much smaller, and it might therefore be possible to use them to produce magnetic fields of comparable strength.

We hold that the perpendicular paramagnetic bonding discussed above is the third stage of the chemical bonding process of the primordial material. The ionic bonding and the covalent bonding are the next two stages. However, to understand the first two stages of the bonding process, it would be necessary to go through our earlier paper, as conceptually, it is vastly different from standard model. Unless some fundamental notions are changed, it would not be possible to understand our theory. Any one interested can write to us.