Scientific Forums


Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3   ( Go to first unread post )

Closed Topic · Start new topic · Start new poll


> The Informational Concept
sDs
Posted: Jun 10 2011, 11:17 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


Because of absence of comments in this thread I quoted already a posting from some other forums. Now it seems a sense to continue such a practice. So:

DrRocket, on 8 June 2011 - 01:59 AM, said: [that is DrRocket's remark on my first post in this forum, #1 7 July 2008 - 11:57 AM ]

"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."

My answer:
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
Top
sDs
Posted: Jul 29 2011, 11:02 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


Since here aren’t new comments/ remarks for a time, I info that some discussion (relating to the relativity theory) appeared in other forum, see
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58770-m...vity-questions/

Cheers
Top
sDs
Posted: Oct 5 2011, 01:11 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


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

As to SSDZ posts above

Possibly the version of an experiment in [Conclusion of] http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 is non-clear a little. So the same but simpler to understand (but possibly not simpler as the technique) version is as:

Let one satellite with two clocks moves through an orbit with [orbital] speed V. By using a rigid rod one of the clocks (clock-2) is transferred on the rod’s length L along the speed vector. Since we have a rigid system, clock-2 obtains the time decrement [-VL/c^2] relating to clock-1. If one returns the rod slowly to the clock-1, both clocks will show equal times. But if clock-2 is disjointed after the transference and it returns by using, say, due to own engine, the decrement will be the same as after separation – though in standard special relativity both [at returning] paths are slow clock transports and in both cases the times of both clocks after the return must be equal.

Such an experiment indeed tests special relativity, in contrast to a multitude of that were made till now – all those experiments were made in the rigid systems and so nothing essential were tested…

Cheers

Top
sDs
Posted: Oct 20 2011, 12:32 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


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
Top
sDs
Posted: Nov 18 2011, 12:53 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


Since there aren't new posts in the thread I again post here a post from an other forum...

QUOTE
Bart, on 12 November 2011 - 07:43 AM, said:
Interesting explanations with the surprising conclusions regarding the interpretation of the SR theory, are shown in the link:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/TransparencySRtheory.pdf

Has anyone already seen it? What can be think about the explanations presented there? Can they be true?


- No. But, as it seems, as well as the SR theory:

Historically some theory that explains the effects appearing at high speeds, i.e. – Michelson–Morley experiment and non-invariance of Maxwell equations at Galilean relativity principle – was created by Voigt, FitzGerald and Lorentz (mainly, there were a number of other contributors) - in 1887 – 1905 (further – "VFL –T"(heory)). In 1905 A. Einstein created some version of the theory that was called "special relativity theory" (SRT). In contrast to the VFL-T, though both were rather similar since were based on the same "Lorentz transformations" (LT), the SRT, as that was declared, is based on two postulates: P1 – relativity principle and P2 – that speed of light is constant in any reference frame. (The postulates weren’t new and implicitly were used at developing of the VFL-T).

But the declaration above isn’t complete – in reality – and what indeed differs the SRT from the VFL-T – the SRT is based on two additional postulates: P3 – the SRT is a global theory, i.e. the LT are true for special and temporal coordinates x, y,z,t from 0 to +/- infinity, and P4 - there is no absolute reference frame in Universe, all reference frames are absolutely equivalent.

Just the last two postulates allowed Minkowski to declare:
…“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".

From what follows, e.g., that at movement some body/ particle the full space is transformed (4D space time is rotated).

At that neither P3 nor P4 cannot be proven or experimentally tested – as well as by no ways one can detect "spacetime transformations" and there aren’t any conceivable methods in the SRT – how the spacetime can be affected.

Besides – given P1 and P2 are true, the SRT became self-contradictory - e.g. – got the twin paradox; from the P4 immediately follows that if there are in spacetime a number of RFs that move with different speeds, then Matter in our Universe has a number of corresponding masses – when it seems evident that there is only unique one, etc.

The VFL-T is local theory and so hasn’t these contradictions and so is more correct then the SRT. But under unknown reasons just the SRT is used in physics (and in this forum) as standard theory till now.

See, also, e.g. . http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58770-m...vity-questions/ and arXiv links in this thread…

Cheers


Top
sDs
Posted: Dec 1 2011, 11:25 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


Since there aren't new posts in the thread I again post here a post from an other forum...

...Besides - to [sDs post Jun 10 2011, 11:17 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 thread’s 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 time’s 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 doesn’t 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
Top
sDs
Posted: Dec 21 2011, 10:28 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


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 11:17 AM)

Cheers

Top
brucep
Posted: Dec 21 2011, 11:11 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 3907
Joined: 3-October 09

Positive Feedback: 88.37%
Feedback Score: 146



Complete nonsense. Especially the crackpot papers.
Send PM ·
Top
Guest
Posted: Dec 22 2011, 05:16 AM


Unregistered









This place is gone, man.
Top
sDs
Posted: Jan 25 2012, 01:27 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


It seems in some forums some novelty appears – if it becomes be necessary “to repost the post "relating to the Many world conception" in my threads some aggressive posts occur – as the couple above. The posts are senseless – the informational conception is rigorously proven and the informational model follows quite naturally from the conception. But what is also new - after such posts my thread becomes be closed , e.g.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscien...html#post296915

Such things happened only in Russian forums till now…
________________________________

But - a continuation of reposting from another forum about twin paradox
_____________________

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
Top
sDs
Posted: Mar 12 2012, 01:17 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


A continuation of reposting from another forum…
_______________________________________




QUOTE
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: "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
Top
sDs
Posted: Apr 19 2012, 12:42 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


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

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/31372-i...546#entry672546
(topic “Inform physics”)
post SSDS 19 of April 2012

- there are two versions of paper - English PDF and Russian PDF.

Cheers
Top
AlexG
Posted: Apr 19 2012, 06:14 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5652
Joined: 8-September 06

Positive Feedback: 73.91%
Feedback Score: 108


QUOTE
but seems some known problems with its acceptance in some publishing institution happened


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


--------------------
Its the way nature is!
If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
To another universe, where the rules are simpler
Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
Prof Richard Fyenman (1979) .....

God does not roll dice with the Universe" - A. Einstein

"God not only plays dice with the Universe, He rolls them where you can't see" - N. Bohr


Top
sDs
Posted: Apr 24 2012, 11:32 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


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 sDs’s post of Jun 10 2011, 11:17 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 linked in the sDs”s post of Apr 19 2012, 12:42 PM . 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
[I][B]
Top
AlexG
Posted: Apr 27 2012, 05:28 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5652
Joined: 8-September 06

Positive Feedback: 73.91%
Feedback Score: 108


rpenner, you gigged me for responding to RC's idiocy.

So why don't you just IP ban him? If we're going to be the judas goat for Sciforums and keep him here instead of there, why give me a neg for engaging with the idiot?


--------------------
Its the way nature is!
If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
To another universe, where the rules are simpler
Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
Prof Richard Fyenman (1979) .....

God does not roll dice with the Universe" - A. Einstein

"God not only plays dice with the Universe, He rolls them where you can't see" - N. Bohr


Top

Topic Options Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3 

Closed Topic · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use