Inform physics

[SSDS]

In case no one noticed that "paper" in the archives has a long list of revisions and no history of submission to any peer-reviewed journal. That, combined with the incomprehensibility of the text itself, is a big hint.

 

 

 

Indeed, this paper, as well as others arXiv ones - http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 (The Information as Absolute), http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 (The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature) and http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 (The informational physics – possible tests) aren’t published in any “peer-reviewed” journal. Though were submitted – "The Information as Absolute" was rejected by 5 philosophical journals, "The informational physics – possible tests" by two; "The informational conception and basic physics" (a shortened version of http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819) – by two.

 

Last case – "The informational conception…" was submitted in the EJTP journal (chief editors Ignazio Licata and Ammar Sakkaj) 07 of September 2010. After two months on our question – where are the Reviewers’ remarks? – the editors answered – that two months is normal and all OK. But the remarks didn’t appear till now when the editors ceased to answer after 22 of November 2010. The last EJTP issue appeared this May without our paper.

 

At that some similar, in certain sense, papers of Tegmark, Floridi, Bostrom, etc. were published in the same journals, though are evidently speculative and in fact don’t add something new to that was in Pythagorean "all from numbers" and in a couple of first strings in the Bible’s Geneses.

 

And if somebody will count the "peer-reviewed" papers relating to "Many worlds", "Many minds" , "Anthropic principle" and other trash – the papers’ number will be pretty large.

 

So why the arXiv papers above weren’t published? – the answer directly follows from this DrRocet’s comment. The comment doesn’t contain any reasonable objections – that is impossible, the infoconception is rigorously proven. So the comment is in fact senseless – but negative. And since, as it is very seems, the editors in "peer- reviewed" journals are some DrRocets also, the odds for the papers to be published are , it seems, near zero. So the submittings for us now is a game – when the paper will be rejected?

 

Though – God bless – arXiv exists. But the arXiv is very large box, so I'm forced to walk through the scientific forums to info people about the conception. On another hand – here is some positive thing – when "those people" appear, I write the post "relating to the Many world conception" in a number of forums. After the post appears, the activity of "those people" becomes be lesser, in 2010 they disappeared in a week after posting. But now the process goes two months already, and doesn’t stop. It seems too much money were spent…

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

Now a special paper relating to Space-Time problem appeared in arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

Now - relating to the OPERA experiment. Observed exceeding of the neutrinos’ speed comparing to the speed of light (SL) contradicts with the informational model (e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) by at least two reasons.

 

First – any known other material particle doesn’t have the speed more then the SL and there are no reasons to think that neutrinos are some exclusion.

 

And two – if some particle has the speed that exceeds the SL, then it can be detected only if it was born on some distance from the detector at a time moment that was in absolute time earlier then corresponding "material" (i.e., of the detector state) absolute time moment. It is practically impossible in this case – the neutrinos were born in material target. So if they had speed more then SL, then they should go out the present absolute time – and impossible be detected by "present time detectors – immediately after the birth.

 

It seems they have an artifact...

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

Again because of absence of comments in this thread I quote a posting from some other forum...

 

....Besides - to SSDS post10 June 2011 - 02:08 AM an addition appeared in the last couple of weeks.

The paper "Space and Time" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) was rejected by two philosophical journals: "METAPHYSICA" (Germany) and "THEORIA" (Spain).

Both without any concrete remarks (in Metaphysica - after 3 week peer review), though the paper is evidently new, actual, reasonable and philosophical.

 

It is interesting is somewhere a "mainstream" philosophical and/or physical journal where editor board are clever and ethical people?

 

 

--------

 

To return to the threads topic let some brief comment to the OPERA experiment.

 

So, from the informational model follows that all/ anything/ everything in Matter move always uninterruptedly in absolute spacetime with the speed of light, c; at that because of equal footing in any spacetime direction and in the absolute time direction - all/ anything/ everything in Matter is always in the same absolute times point.

 

If some particle that is born in Matter obtains a spatial speed that differs from the speed of light including if exceeds c , then it is rather probable that it change footing in the absolute time also and hence immediately occurs outside Matter and cannot interact with any material particle. As well as any material particles that are produced by such a particle (e.g., electron-positron pairs) will be outside Matter (non-detectable) also.

 

So a theory, which considers such a particles, rather probably cannot be verified in an experiment.

 

OPERA neutrinos are born at material interactions and are detected in material detector, so it is rather probable that their speed doesnt exceed c and it is necessary to verify (if the electronics delays are estimated correctly) the synchronization (e.g., by transport of a clock from CERN to Italy) and the geodesy…

 

Cheers

Edited December 1, 2011 by SSDS

[derek w]

Is the gist of this thread,that you do not need the existence of a physical world,you only need an information stream to create an illusion of a physical world.Or am I not understanding?

[SSDS]

Is the gist of this thread,that you do not need the existence of a physical world,you only need an information stream to create an illusion of a physical world.Or am I not understanding?

 

It isn’t so. There is no "illusion" – the "physical" (seems more correct – "material") world is indeed in reality an "information stream"; it is an evolution of some logical structures that are united in the main structure – Matter; by, e.g., the universal force – gravity. But Matter is some – infinitesimal relating to the main Set – subset of utmost fundamental Set "Informationn".

 

And that can be rigorously proven – i.e., it is possible to prove rigorously truth, self-consistence and compliteness of corresponding “informational conception” and the existence of the Set "Information". There is nothing besides informational structures anywhere at all, including – outside Matter; what else that a human see and feels – living beings, other consciousness – are elements of different subsets, i.e., - "Alive" and "Consciousness".

 

Roughly speaking Matter exists on 4 levels: (3) – logical gates that are elementary particles, first of all – nuclones and electrones. The particles, under some inherent program codes, which, in turn, are governed by some rules, first of all – Space and Time rules – and "forces" unite constituting macro (level 4) objects. I.e. a human that sees the level 4 objects in reality sees a cinema that practically is the same as a cinema on a PC screen: in both cases in reality some logical gates flip in an order.

 

The level 3 (particles) are, in turn, some closed loop logical algorithms that work on hardware – fundamental logical elemens (FLE) – that are level 2.

 

And, at last the FLEs, as it seems (there are no data about – can FLEs be divide "materially" onto some more elementary things), are formed from "purely informational logical chains" – level 1.

 

I.e. – all that exists is/are some "words" but these words are rigid ones, e.g. – we can walk on them.

 

More – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003

(click on link and then on "pdf only")

 

Cheers

[CaptainPanic]

SSDS,

Did it occur to you that you do not get any response because we all still don't understand what you are talking about?

 

You need to order your texts better. It's possible that you have a good message, but we cannot follow it. I urge you to focus more on the text. It is very important that you spend a lot of time thinking about the science, but there comes a point where you have to think: "what message do I want to tell the other people".

 

You cannot tell us everything. We simply don't have the time.

You should think about the core of the message, and tell us that first. Then explain the rest, piece by piece.

 

Right now you remind me of one of my teachers at uni, who would teach us for 1 semester, who never get any questions, and who was then surprised we all failed the exam. We never had any questions because we understood so little about what he was talking about that we were not able to ask a good question. I hope you are not offended by this. I try to help.

[SSDS]

SSDS,

Did it occur to you that you do not get any response because we all still don't understand what you are talking about?

 

You need to order your texts better. It's possible that you have a good message, but we cannot follow it. I urge you to focus more on the text. It is very important that you spend a lot of time thinking about the science, but there comes a point where you have to think: "what message do I want to tell the other people".

 

You cannot tell us everything. We simply don't have the time.

You should think about the core of the message, and tell us that first. Then explain the rest, piece by piece.

 

Right now you remind me of one of my teachers at uni, who would teach us for 1 semester, who never get any questions, and who was then surprised we all failed the exam. We never had any questions because we understood so little about what he was talking about that we were not able to ask a good question. I hope you are not offended by this. I try to help.

 

-? As to me, at least last (2 December 2011 - 04:52 AM) post is rather clear. The derek w' question was – what of "informational flow" and "physical world" is an illusion? The answer was – both aren’t illusion; both are "physical". As, e.g., like both – the gates flipping in a PC and pictures on the PC’s screen are physical; simply for given software shell we see the flipping in given specific manner - as well as we cognize Nature by using some "software shell" also.

 

But that is an example of an application of the informational conception only, in the conception a lot of other philosophical and physical problems become be much more understandable. But to make the problems more understandable is necessary to understand the conception, for that – to read at least the links http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003

carefully and to think a little. Besides – since the conception is rather non-standard, though rigorously logically grounded , sometimes is necessary to bent some brain’s convolution and to have seen at last that it is true.

 

As to the physical model that follows from the conception – here it is necessary to have some high school physical education. And this thread was earlier in the physics section of this forum but under unknown reason was moved to this section.

 

And to above – sorry for my russian English somewhere…

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

Since there aren’t posts relating to the thread’s topic (except a couple of evident spam above) I again post here a post from an other physical forum:

 

_____

 

(A thread about "twin apradox")

 

 

It seems that 100 years discussion again renewed here – when all, rather probably, is evident – the paradox is in reality a manifestation of inherent self –contradiction of Einstein’s "special relativity theory", which appears since in the theory the globality of Lorentz transformations (LT) and equality of the IRFs are postulated. These postulates mean nothing else that Einstein and Minkowsky equated erroneously two fundamentally different things – fundamental essences "Space" and "Time" (rules that govern processes in Matter) and concrete material – and rigid! - objects, i.e., clocks and scales.

 

Again, any material object always moves in absolute spacetime with speed of light in some direction. And just after an acceleration in given IRF, a clock/ scale obtain some momentum and as a result – changes its direction (rotates) in spacetime what an observer in given IRF sees as a slowing down of clock’s reading and FotzGerald- Lorentz contration; when in the standard SRT that is interpreted as “[global, in whole Universe] spacetime rotation”. Though to say, e.g., when a car turns (say to the right) on a crossroad, that in reality at that Earth turns to the left is in fact the same and is equally absurd. However the mathematics is in both cases the same – till the case when two cars occur in the crossroad and turn in different directions – and poor Earth cannot decide – where must She rotate?

 

In fact all what Einstein made new to the VFL-theory – that is famous energy/mass equation, though it follows from the LT and was known for EM processes. But when all rest physical society thought that all is possible to reduce to electromagnetism and, seems, start a competition "Who first develops corresponding "Theory of Everything" , Einstein was the first who declared that nature of material objects can be non-EM, but E=mc^2 is true.

 

 

 

Note besides that there weren’t any experimental tests of the SRT – all experiments that were made ere in reality testing of the VFL-theory. The experiments that really can reveal difference SRT/VFLT are real – e.g. - that is,e.g., the experiment with two clocks in an orbit (see, e.g. paper [0706.3979] The informational model - possible tests and a version somewhere in Net)

 

More – see again http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 (Space and Time) and section 2 in http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 (The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?)

 

___________

Besides - next time it seems necessary to repost the post "relating to the Many world conception" (see SSDS post 10 June 2011 - 02:08 AM)

 

Cheers

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

A continuation of reposting from another forum…

_________________________________

 

Poor twin…

 

Again – so called "twin paradox" isn’t a paradox, that is a manifestation of the self- contradiction of standard "mainstream" special relativity theory; and so the paradox cannot be resolved in framework of this theory – by any means. Here nothing can help, neither any increase of twin number, nor [evidently non-correct] use of the equivalence principle (e.g. - Tolman R.C. “Relativity, thermodynamics, and cosmology” ) - at first – the acceleration and gravity aren’t the same, these are quite different things, and – secondly – indeed, there is the gravity time dilation, but it acts on a clock all time when exists (and clock tiks faster when the gravity disappears), when acceleration can act in some small part of the “traveler” way, but his time dilation conserves in inertial traveler’s path also.

 

Acceleration doesn’t “give rise” to the time dilation, Lorentz transformations don’t contain letter “a”, but to change a clock’s time dilation is necessary to change clock’s speed, at that seems nobody observed till now any speed’s change without an acceleration. But to accelerate something is necessary to impact on this something by some force and transmit to it some momentum/ energy.

 

Again – in reality the paradox contains [at least] two paradoxes – “clock paradox” (this thread) and “energy paradox”.

An example of the second one: an electron in an electronic, say 10 MeV, accelerator must - if it is true believer of the standard SRT – think that it is at rest, when Earth was accelerated to corresponding speed by using some engine and fuel of nearly 20 Earths + 20 anty-Earths; if it looks at heavens and see, say, our MetaGalaxy moving by with the same speed then necessary fuel is 20 MetaGalaxy + 20 anti MetaGalaxy; etc.

 

But it is very possible that other electrons in the beam, who aren’t true believers, will think “that seems as tooo counterintuitive”; especially since they see that when they are in motion there are no “Earth + antiEarth” blasts.

 

Again – the SRT postulate about equivalence of any inertial frames is non- correct, the paradox traveler’s frame is distinguished – as any other frames in Matter that moves relating to absolute spacetime, though. Moreover, there aren’t global frames besides those that are at rest relating to the spacetime, any others are local and “relativistic effects” occur inside rigid objects (including, e.g., system Earth + a satellite) only.

 

So – there aren’t any paradoxes – the traveler’s clock is “time dilated” (as well as traveler after return will be younger then homebody since everything in Matter, including human’s body is, eventually, a clock); correspondingly the homebody must not spend any fuel, etc.

 

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

A continuation of reposting from another forum…

_______________________________________

 

 

Originally Posted by Secret

 

The distinction of Past and Future From here Feynman said the irreversibility of time is due to the irregular motion of a huge amount of particles becoming more disordered over time (e.g.a system of many particles in a ink-water mixture, it is less likely for the ink particles to separate from the water particles (or become more ordered) than remain mixed (disordered))In the end he also mentioned that for a closed system, things tend to go to states where the availability of energy decreases/become more distributed (i.e. entropy increases). But what about the formation of memory, as entropy seemed to be decreasing? Does "no memory" has more energy than "memory"? Or is formation of memory considered a open system?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_timeIn reference to my 2nd block of text, the perceptual/psychological arrow of time is what bugs me most, as it seemed to go in a direction opposite to entropyP.S. Any more insights to this topic?N.B. Original title (blocked by error 500): The difference of past, present and future ”

-------------------------

 

There is a next (in a huge number of others) attempt to understand – what is the time? And again the result is without something understandable. Such a situation is quite natural – the notion "time" is fundamental in the World’s picture and as any other fundamental can be – at least in certain extent – understand only in framework of the informational conception.

Any other way – what all philosophical history shows - leads only to appearance of next non-tested and non-provable suggestions that "explain" some separate sides of this notion.

 

In the informational conception (http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 , more specific http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) Time has two main features:

 

(1) - Time is a innate component of logic – it is a rule and states (or governs) that the cause is always earlier then effect. An example – in the fundamental Set "Information" any information about changes in any Set’s elements appears in every other elements immediately, "the time interval" is infinitesimal. But it isn’t equal to zero exactly, the cause-effect events "change – reception of information in other element" cannot be simultaneous; and

 

(2) – time (in e.g., physics) is a parameter that defines/ characterizes/ allows to compare for given subset of the Set – including for Matter of our Universe - what time interval is necessary for some process to pass. That is a next problem – why in Matter the time intervals aren’t infinitesimal, but that is non-principal. On a first stage is enough to know that as the experimental fact.

 

From the conception and experiment directly follows that Matter is some well organized simple dynamical logical system, something as large computer consisting of huge number rather independent automata, united, though, by universal informational bond, i.e. by gravity.

This computer works having highly stable "operating rate" (seems having tact be equal to Planck time) and was started in some time (possibly "absolutely long time ago") after it got enough energy to create and move some number of particles (automata).

 

Just the stability of the tact's period and "fundamental gate’s" length lead to uniformity of the time’s and the space’s scales.

The execution of the computer’s program code is in reality "the time flow". Why the direction of the flow is the same as the entropy evolution – that is again some next, important, but non-principal problem.

 

The realization of the rule "Time" in a specific Set's subset "Matter" is specific also. It is simultaneously "coordinate time" and "absolute time" – tough both times are, of course, absolute and don’t depend on material objects.

 

The coordinate time is the coordinate in 4-D Euclidian spacetime that is rather similar to the space coordinates – a particle moves in this time as in space.

 

The absolute time is a manifestation of the Time as the rule also – to step, e.g., in space is necessary to spend (to step) in the time, at that the steps in coordinate and absolute times are the same.

 

So all Matter objects, though always uninterruptedly moving in coordinate spacetime with the speed of light in different specific directions, are always in one absolute time moment; the film "Matter’s evolution" runs shot by shot; when every next shot is "Matter now", correspondingly former shots are "Matter in past" and next shots are "Matter in future".

 

At that, when a material object is in the absolute spacetime at rest, it moves in the coordinate time with the speed of light. If after some space impact it becomes to move in the space also, it must move in coordinate time slower then C – and, if the object is a clock, then clock’s pointer becomes to move slower also – showing so "the time dilation". Again – nothing at that happens with either the space or the time; none of them "are doomed to fade away into mere shadows" as that is stated in the Einstein-Minkowsky special relativity theory.

More – see the arXiv links above.

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

Now a next paper relating to the informational physics was made, bu seems again known problems with its acception in some publishing institution happened. So I attach it to this thread...

 

Cheers

English.pdf

Russian.pdf

[imatfaal]

SDSS - I am not qualified to judge the content - in fact I didn't even reach any substantive content - but to be published in English the standard of the written text would have to improve. At present it is completely unclear what you are trying to say in your first two paragraphs.

[SSDS]

SDSS - I am not qualified to judge the content - in fact I didn't even reach any substantive content - but to be published in English the standard of the written text would have to improve. At present it is completely unclear what you are trying to say in your first two paragraphs.

 

To understand - what is written - is necessary to read the paper as a whole, to read the referencies pointed out in the "first two paragraphs", and to think - at least a little. That can occupy some time.

 

Cheers

[imatfaal]

To understand - what is written - is necessary to read the paper as a whole, to read the referencies pointed out in the "first two paragraphs", and to think - at least a little. That can occupy some time.

 

Cheers

 

Sorry - but no. To comprehend the full import of the paper that might be correct - but in this case the sentences are so badly constructed that there is no/little meaning to be taken from them

[SSDS]

Sorry - but no. To comprehend the full import of the paper that might be correct - but in this case the sentences are so badly constructed that there is no/little meaning to be taken from them

 

The second practically the same post. I wrote here already, that this thread is intended for professional phisicists; it was in the Physics section earlier. I wrote also earlier, that Englosh isn't my native language, but the paper's text is clear enough.

 

To answer in some sence (first of all - see after "****" below), I re-post here the post from another forum:

 

 

QUOTE (AlexG @ Apr 19 2012, 06:14 PM)

You mean you couldn't get this woo-woo published.

 

It seems next "aggressive" user appeared. The point "some known problems with its acceptance in some publishing institution happened" means, first of all, the problems that were mentioned in the SSDS’s post of Jun 10 2011, 02:08 AM above.

 

Besides to this Jun 10 post – some case in so called "ResearchGate" forum that happened last time.

 

17 of Apr. I posted in this forum’s thread "Why do photons move? Why don't they stay in the same place?"

 

a comment:

___

 

“Electrons always move with lesser then speed of light”

-? That isn’t so. Again – everything in Matter moves in 4-D Euclidian spacetime with the speed of light – again, as well every electron. Simply if it is at rest in the absolute spacetime it moves only along t-axis with this speed, having at that (along this axis) its “rest mass” be equal zero, but the energy m_0c^2 and momentum m_0c. But in spatial directions electron’s rest mass isn’t equal zero, and it can move in such direction with a speed that is always lesser then speed of light. Moreover - everything in Matter (Matter is rather cold now, after 14 billions year cooling) – atoms, planets, Galaxies, etc. -move along the time axis with the sped of light practically and having practically zero rest mass.

 

When a material particle – e.g., an muon, which have the speed of light at rest in t-axes, becomes move in a spatial direction, then – since its speed is always equal to c – it must move in the time direction slower and so “becomes be time-dilated” – that is in reality “the time dilation” in so called “special relativity theory”.

 

- Some additional remark – at an electron-positron annihilation sum momentum along t-axes indeed conserves – it is equal to zero, but (if the pair is at rest) two photons’ momentum appear – but in a spatial directions with the sum =zero also.

 

More – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 and section 2 in http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819

______________

but this comment disappeared after couple of hours, as well as the second one.

Then I posted it again with the remark:

 

___________

(This post was written a coupe days ago, but deleted by some reason. That was some R-Gate moderators or somebody have some Trojan-access to my account?;

- and – this post was written 12.04, but was deleted again. It seems that isn’t something accidental. So I would like to ask somebody, who have read the post, to saved it and, if it will disappears again, to rewrite it in she/ his post – i.e. – from another account)

 

After that whole thread “Why do photons…” disappeared…

******

But it can be possible, that this AlexG indeed understood nothing in the paper that is attached in the SSDS”s post of Apr 19 2012, 03:02 AM - IN THE PAGE 2 HERE.

 

So I would like to add, that to understand the paper it is rather desirable to read also

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 ;

 

and – to think a little, besides – since the conception is rather non-standard – to try to bend some brain’s convolution.

 

Cheers

Edited April 24, 2012 by SSDS

[CaptainPanic]

I wrote also earlier, that Englosh isn't my native language, but the paper's text is clear enough.

It is not clear enough. You have to improve your style. I read one of your articles again, and I do not understand anything.

 

Maybe your English is bad.

Maybe your structure of the text is also bad.

 

My suggestion would be: write the text in Russian, and give it to a technical translation agency. It costs some money to get a good translation of the paper, but at least it means we can discuss science.

 

If you do not improve, we cannot respond. Sorry.

[SSDS]

Regrettably I’m forced again (see, e.g., 7 June 2011 - 09:57 AM SSDS ) to recall about my posts "relating to Many World conception":

… In June 2009 under some reasons I was forced to place in a number of forums a post "relating to well known "Many World" concept”. That remedied the situation on a some time…

etc.

 

- non-virtual “some people” appeared again.

 

Besides now "virtual some people” appeared, as that turned out to be in the case with submitting to arXiv the last paper

(http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , The Informational Conception and Basic Physics).

 

The paper was initially submitted to arXiv 30 of March, but wasn’t published – arXiv admin had some remarks; but I don’t obtain the remark. In April I a few times asked arXiv – why isn’t the paper published? But again without answers. In May I wrote to arXiv a next query from another PC and in an on-line regime to clear the situation - it turned out to be that they sent me the remarks, but some “e-mail client” blocked them; as well as some another mails, since in this year I don’t obtain anything besides some spam.

 

The next "virtual" bad sign - my thread in other forum

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27078&st=0

 

was closed this May after aggressive and senseless posts of some user AlexG, at that – the posts "relating to Many World conception" were deleted from the thread. Though the posts are important for our safety.

 

So I’m forced to point out, that the authors of the informational conception have rather perfect health and aren’t going to be in some another World, at least in next decade.

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

When the problem is clear enough, the debates about the special relativity theory don’t stop…

 

So called "special relativity theory" is indeed incorrect, as it is clear to any conscientious physicist. The point is that in the SRT was stated – in contrast to correct (and earlier developed) local Voigt-Fitzgerald-Lorentz theory (VFL-theory) – that there isn’t absolute spacetime ant that all inertial reference frames are equivalent. As that was in famous Minkowski declaration:

 

“…We should then have in the world no longer space, but an infinite number of spaces, analogously as there are in three-dimensional space an infinite number of planes. Three-dimensional geometry becomes a chapter in four-dimensional physics. Now you know why I said at the outset that space and time are to fade away into shadows, and only a world in itself will subsist".

 

An example – the 2-th postulate of the special relativity theory isn’t correct:

 

let be standard SRT problem, when on some platform there are a light source, a clock, and a mirror (normally to the source on a distance L). When the platform is at rest, light moves 2L for the time T, and the speed of light is 2L/T=C.

If the platform moves with a speed V, then its MEASURED speed again is 2L/T1=C, i.e. again is equal to C, but since the clock’s time interval T1 is "time dilated", i.e. is equal to T1=T/ gamma, then REAL speed of light in the platform’s RF isn’t equal to C, but to C/gamma.

 

I.e. the main Einstein mistake is that he erroneously identified absolute fundamental rules/ possibilities Space/space and Time/time with material objects, namely - scales and clocks.

 

The Lorentz transformations are valid to the scales and clocks only and in rigid systems only.

 

And (in 1905, in EMB paper, section 3) Einstein was correct when has wrote: “Let us in “stationary" space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one another, and issuing from a point.”

 

But further in the SRT (when "space and time were to fade away into shadows") as reference frames some abstract frames with some abstract lines became be considered – with, e.g., evident inconsistence above and so called "twin paradox". The last isn’t a paradox; it is, in reality, a realization of internal contradictoriness of the SRT. The "explanation of the paradox", e.g., that the couple of frames is "non- Einsteinian" since traveler’s frames is boosted is evidently erroneous since the clocks’ showings difference exists in inertial path. Besides – any material object in Matter of our Universe was born in some interaction and was boosted – there aren’t any “Einsteinian” frames in reality.

 

In addition – there weren’t till now any experiment that confirm the SRT; all known experiments confirm the VFL-theory only, since all were made in rigid material systems. To test the SRT really is necessary to make experiment with independent clocks and scales – as that is suggested, e.g., in http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 V3 (Conclusion) or http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 V3. The experiment is rather cheap and simple, when with great probability one will detect that no transformations of space and time occur.

 

More see again the links above and http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003

 

Cheers

 

(This post was removed in some other forum; my login was suspended. It seems that is some last argument of the SRT defenders…)

[SSDS]

Since there isn’t posts in this thread I repost some discussion from an other forum :

______

QUOTE (Ed Wood @ Sep 6 2012, 01:05 AM)

I should pull an AlexG and call you names but I will be civil.

 

SRT works.

 

The SRT hypothesis is incorrect. The tests will not prove anything but SRT Works.

 

The only true test of SRT would be a True Twins Clock Test where 2 synchronized atomic clocks start @ a location 1 travels away from the other @ a high speed preferably above .5C for a period of time then returns to the same place @ a similar high rate of speed all the while sending time stamped messages to the start location for the entire journey where they are recorded for the entire length of the journey and compared with the predictions of SRT

 

I personally would like to see the Gravitational test in the paper. It does provide a mechanistic description of gravity don't know if it is correct but the test should be done.

 

- Yea, the approach to gravity in the papers (the links in sDs post above) seems on one hand – “too simple”, but on the other hand – it seems as not too accidental. When it promises a number of rather useful inferences, for example – it becomes be clear – what is the equivalence of the inertial and gravitational masses. And it is rather simple and can be done by using existing installations, e.g., - the gravitational wave detectors. It is necessary only to add the 3-th interferometer’s arm in a borehole having depth 300-400 m.

 

But the test that indeed checks the SRT (with two clocks on an orbit, at comparing the clocks’ showings when they are transported in a rigid system and are transported independently, see the links) is rather simple also.

The point is that both - Voigt-Fitzgerald-Lorentz theory and the SRT - are based on the same Lorentz transformations. Practically the unique – and fundamental – difference is that the LT in VFL-theory are applied locally, when in the SRT the LT are global in whole “united space-time”. Roughly speaking, for example, in the VFLT rigid rods contract, but in the SRT –the space contracts; in the VFLT clocks become be slowed, when in the SRT the time becomes be dilated.

 

So if experiments are done in rigid systems, then outcomes will be identical in the VFLT and in the SRT since they use the same LT – what is obtained in all known experiments that were intended for “SRT testing”. Including in the experiments with satellites – Earth’s gravity force made corresponding experimental systems be rigid.

 

So in reality there weren’t any experiments that really tested the SRT.

When, if be done, such an experiment would be rather fruitful also…

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

It turn out to be that there are a number of papers were so called “Euclidian relativity” is developing (60-th – 2000 years), where a number of ideas and results of the informational model were obtained earlier.

(see, e.g, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity_%28alternative_formulations%29 ).

 

The papers weren’t published and referred in mainstream journals, so I found those works only recently.

Corresponding modification of the http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , V4, appeared in arXiv. Changes are rather little – some additional subsection in section 2.2.1 and a couple of sentences in Discussions and conclusion.

 

Cheers

Russian_09_12.pdf

Edited October 2, 2012 by SSDS

[SSDS]

Now a little modification (mainly – some editing and something relating to the “twin paradox”) of the paper “Space and Time” appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , V2.

 

Cheers

[Semjase]

 

Hello All

Because of last 3 posts are like as Phi for All’s one, I answer to the last mainly.

So the Phi for All’s questions:

(4a) "What does your title mean?"
- The title "Inform physics" means that in the thread a non-traditional, namely – "informational" –approach in physics is suggested for a discussion. This approach is not totally new – it well corresponds to something like of Feynman, Penrouse, Wheeler, etc. works; in last decade – there are the works of E. Fredkin, Max Tegmark, N. Margolus, etc.; where the conjectures that Universe is some "ensemble" (or “computer”) are considered.

 

This universe may be a computer simulation, scientific evidence is pointing in that

direction as German physicists are trying to prove if this universe is a computer simulation or not.

 

Here's a link to their story below

 

http://www.techspot.com/news/50468-physicists-may-prove-we-exist-in-a-computer-simulation.html

 

 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Semjase, please do not hijack other threads with your own speculations.

[SSDS]

 

 

 

 

 

 

This universe may be a computer simulation, scientific evidence is pointing in that

direction as German physicists are trying to prove if this universe is a computer simulation or not.

 

Here's a link to their story below

 

http://www.techspot.com/news/50468-physicists-may-prove-we-exist-in-a-computer-simulation.html

 

 

 

“(Nick Bostrom “famously hypothesized”) … that our very existence may be nothing more than the algorithmic results of a computer simulation. in a holographic universe constructed by vastly superior beings? I know -- it sounds like the basis for good science fiction, but...”

- The “simulation hypothesis”, is in reality, the basis for a science fiction only, since it have a number of evident problems. For example – it is practically impossible to make corresponding simulation of Matter, e.g., every particle interacts with every other particle in Universe, at least by gravity; besides now it is known 3 fundamental forces besides gravity. Even “to simulate”, e.g., a real flight of a stone is necessary to simulate every impact of every air molecule, which, in turn, are dependent on wind, temperature, dust, etc., etc., etc. It seems very probable, that some “vastly superior beings” could find much more useful business, then to game in some puppet-show.

 

As well as “…The problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time...”

 

– isn’t by any means required by the “simulation hypothesis” only, there are a lot of much more physically based hypotheses, where space-time is discreet.

As well as, for example, the discreet space time is in the informational physical model; the difference – in this case the discreetness of space-time is rigorously grounded; from the model follow a number of experimentally tested rather important physical results – see arXiv:1110.0003 , arXiv:1004.3712 , arXiv:0707.4657 , arXiv:0706.3979 .

Though the “simulation hypothesis” have, by some unknown reasons, very good PR, for example – in May 2011 the info "you’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it"

(e.g., http://io9.com/5799396/youre-living-in-a-computer-simulation-and-math-proves-it )

 

was in a week widely spread through Web – there were more then 100 000 links.

 

At that – the info was at least twice incorrect, besides the “hypothesis” itself, the statement that “math proves something” is nonsense. Math cannot prove anything, all what can math, that it guarantees that the math results are consistent with the corresponding initial suggestions/ conditions. So if the suggestions were rubbish, then math results will be rubbish also, and nothing more

 

Cheers