Journal of Theoretics Vol.5-3  June/July 2003 Comments

There is No Time!

I agree on the article that time does not exist. I believe that what does exist is relative motion. Time is the yard stick (read human created measuring device) for which we quantify relative motion. If everything down to a subatomic level stopped moving except the observer, it would appear that the yard stick of time would have stopped. In this case what has stopped isn’t some tangible goo substance of time, but the relative motion of objects. So I agree completely that Time does not exist. Now if I can keep that secret from my boss.

Michael John Rench   mrench000@mindspring.com

Note (To be added to: AQUESTIONOFTIME.COM/In The Beginning): It turns out that it is possible to generate a simple procedure that synchronizes clocks for two bodies that are in relative uniform motion – the motion that is called for under SRT.
The procedure is similar to the one discussed above, which produces t-synchronization for bodies that are fixed in their relative positions. For the case of uniform relative motion we need only invoke the principle of relativity. It will turn out, as a consequence of this procedure, that the second principle, that the velocity of light is independent of the motion of
the source, must be false.
The procedure can best be illustrated by a specific thought experiment: Assume that two bodies, A and B, are separating at a uniform, but unknown rate. They are in outer space so we can’t say that either is stationary. A sequence of light pulses, sent out at one-second intervals by either one, will experience a Doppler effect which increases the spacing of these pulses by a factor F (a constant, larger than 1) when received by the other body. Since the principle of relativity requires symmetry, this will be the same factor in either direction. If the observer at A sends out this sequence, and it is reflected at B, then on the return to A the sequence is again stretched by the factor F, so now the spacing is FxF. This enables the observer at A to know what the factor F is, by simply taking the square root of the increased spacing.
Now, let the observer at B send out a sequence of pulses at one second intervals - BY THE CLOCK AT B. If the observer at A receives them with a spacing different from F, he can advise the observer at B to increase or decrease the rate at which B’s clock runs, so as to produce the same Doppler effect, F.

Voila – I-synchronization.

Hans J. Zweig Ph. D.
HJZWEIG@aol.com

Dear Dr. Siepmann,

Recently I read your papers and found some similar ideas between your concept about matter, energy, space and the concept that I use in BSM theory, for which you have published two of my papers in your journal.
The formulation of the The Laws of Space and Observation is pretty close to the concept I developed. The only missing part of your concept, from my point of view, is the definition of the space fabrics (a term used in number of scientists). In modern physics its formulation is very foggy (for some phenomena it is like a void, but for other – not). Einstein introduced a space-time concept, that means the space and time are inseparable. This puzzle, however, does not lead to clear logical analyses of the phenomena. In BSM I introduced a real substance - an underlying vacuum grid that I called a Cosmic Lattice. (The node distance of the Cosmic Lattice is about 1E-20 (m), so it is undetectable by any direct method). With this substance the laws you have formulated (especially from 1 to 5) become logically understandable. This substance also allows to separate the space from time parameter and to explain General and Special relativity in a logical way without ambiguity.
I like your simple example of “fish in water” as it is edifying for blinded scientists.
In your paper “The Light Clock: A New Method of Measuring True Time” you say: “Gravity as detailed in the Laws of Space and Observation does not exist as a direct force but rather as the result of the pressure exerted by "Space" on the matter/energy that is displacing it”.
This is a genius idea and I completely agree with such a general formulation. In BSM theory I used the concept that the mass we know is a pressure of the CL space structure (the space, known as physical vacuum) on this volume part of the structure of the elementary particles that is not penetrative for this CL space structure.
I was not acquainted with your idea in time when I developed my work. Evidently the logical analysis when observing the principle of the real objectivity brought both of us to similar ideas.
Your concepts and especially this for the Newton’s gravity are in correct direction. I had communication with number of open minded scientists, but no one have reached such deeper vision about these tough topics.
Another think that impressed me is your wide range of interests. This definitely helps in searching the truth.

Regards,
S. Sarg  sarg@helical-structures.org
PhD in physics

On Gravity and Center of Gravity Views

Dear Sir,

I have recently found out about your journal and would like to comment and ask questions about specific issues on gravity you have addressed. I would like to say in general that your approach of having on-line and accessible journals is certainly interesting, and that most of the articles dealing with the philosophy of science and scientific ideas are refreshing and welcome. On some of the more technical articles I feel more analysis may benefit the journal content as discussed below. On one topic you address though I would like you to clarify a few points as these are ideas I have been considering myself. These are the definition of gravity as a force, and the definition of the center of gravity.

The Nature of Gravity:
In the Vol.1 No.1 and Vol.1 No.2 by proposing some Laws of Space and Observation you want to redefine gravity. Now, I agree that throughout my studies as a mechanical and space science student, no rationale has been given for the definition or value of the constant of gravity G. Indeed, this is currently an area of research for philosophers and scientists involved in discussions on the anthropic principle (see the book by Tipler and Barrow on the subject).
So you propose yourself that gravity be in fact expressed from another (but, you assert, measurable and physically meaningful) constant, the Space constant SC related to Space dynamics, and which needs to be corrected by a "Relative Space Warp" or RSW that is itself dependant on the Angle of Photon Deviation. So I understand you end up with F (grav) = m * RSW * SC with RSW = f (APD) as opposed to F = m * (MG/R^2).
Whilst this works relatively well for local gravity fields, the implication of your idea is that the Angle of Photon deviation should vary with the distance from the attracting mass to reproduce the phenomenon of orbits. In all that I have read so far you do not propose a derivation of this relation, nor experimental data that would tend to show this relation. It seems to me your reasoning has stopped mid-way in providing an alternative explanation to G for the expression of gravity. Maybe it would be worth you completing the logical argument for this to complete your theory. Have you got some thoughts on this?
There is also an argument about the SC value you propose; whilst it is intuitively more meaningful that G (it is defined as a pressure), the question is immediately asked why is it the value it is? The only explanation I can find is that it is, like the speed of light in vacuum, a fundamental constant of nature, much like G. I think though I would have to agree that on principle it is more meaningful, given that G can only be defined as the force exerted by two unit masses at a distance of 1 meter. Then again maybe there are other derivations for G, I have not yet researched this but I intend to.
Finally, I wonder whether you have considered the practical difficulties involved here; For it would mean that to calculate dynamics of objects (such as for instance satellites) in orbit around masses one would need to measure this Angle of Photon Deviation at various altitudes. So we replace a relation that is valid in the whole universe and involves only fundamental values of the considered bodies (mass and space) with one depending on measures of local physical phenomena, which has got to be a problem for applications. It does not diminishes the relevance of your theory, but questions whether it is a more appropriate way to formulate gravity.

Definition of the Center of Gravity:
I would like to maybe complete the comment you made in your Vol.3 No.3 issue [Center of Gravity] about the definition of the center of gravity. There are two issues here which are first the value of the center of gravity, and second the confusion between centre of mass and centre of gravity.

a) Center of Gravity Definition:
The definition from the dictionary you put as title is of course correct, and is translated mathematically as an integral. You point out in a roundabout way that this relation is not true any longer when applied to non-point masses, where indeed the integrals become more complicated as each infinitesimal element from the attracting mass must be integrated over all elements from the attracted one, so to speak. You are correct in this, although maybe wrong is assuming that this is a widespread misconception (see point b) below).
However this is much less of a misconception than assuming that gravity is constant, which you do not do personally but is often supposed generally. As is well known gravity diminishes with distance and a uniform gravity field does not in fact exist in the real world. It is an approximation. Over your body (and mine) Earth's gravity varies, although by a tiny amount of course. Where this becomes apparent is in large structures in space (such as space tethers like TSS-1 or TiPS) where delta gravity forces actually create the tension that maintains the tether taught. I think any discussion about centers of gravity should mention that.
I believe to say that this is a generic misconception is maybe excessive. There is in all physics course I've seen at least a formal distinction made between the two, if not a practical one. The misconception is in assuming that "in general", gravity is constant. In fact, only in small areas like planet surfaces can gravity be considered constant. This case is the exception rather than the norm, even though our daily experience suggests otherwise.

b) Non-uniform Bodies and Gravity:
It is also perfectly true to say that non-uniform bodies create non-uniform gravity fields as you point out with your example of a rod-shaped body. As such a rod-like gravity body is maybe difficult to find in the world, I think you could point out another simpler example in the shape of our good old planet Earth.
Earth has got what is called an equatorial bulge, which is responsible for remarkable feats in astrodynamics, not the least that if you choose the orbit of an artificial satellite carefully, this non-uniform field will be such that the orbit is "locked" so that its angle relative to the Sun caries by one degree per day, which means that the satellite always see the Earth with the same local solar time. This is called the sun-synchronous orbit and is where most Earth Observation satellites are placed in fact.
Finally, it is also worth mentioning, I should think, that planetary gravity field is an exploding science, and that the gravity field from the Earth and other planets are far from uniform and are being mapped with increased accuracy by ground and space surveys (ex the GEM model).

c) Center of Mass:
The center of mass is technically only a mathematical centre. Its only physical use is during inertial calculations. It is only due to two facts that in most cases it is considered the same as the CoG:
First, because mass used for gravity and mass used for inertia are, astoundingly, one and the same thing. It is a disappointment to me that in your journal which seeks to explore the fundamentals of physics, no one has yet talked about this Equivalence Principle (EP), its implications, and its validity. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is a primary axiom of physics at which most physicists have marvelled from Galileo to Einstein. In fact some missions were proposed to test in space in the long term (STEP and MicroSCOPE for instance, on which I personally worked). People should always be reminded that this is nothing more that an assumption, which has no explanation at all. There are actually hints that the EP breaks down at subatomic levels, which I understand would settle the dispute between relativity and quantum theory ( I am not versed enough in these subjects to confirm this).
Second, because of the EP, and in a "near-uniform" gravitational field (see above), indeed the center of mass and center of gravity amount to the same location.
On such fundamental issues it seems to me one should try to be relatively thorough in explanations.

In all cases I hope you can progress towards a mature journal. I would hope that you review the possible papers with a more discerning eye as to not only the validity but also the interest of the content; As someone interested and "aware" of astronomical issues in the Solar system, I found in particular your article in Vol4 No4 (Planetary pairs in the solar system) by M. Tewari not worthy of publication. Whilst I do not dispute his derivations, it seems to me little more than numerical tweaking (some could even mention numerology) to find some sort of law where it has been established that there is none to be found. The Titus-Bode law has long been thought of as a coincidence, and I really do not see what the author wishes to express in his work with respect to that. The current configuration of the Solar system is ultimately explained by gravity, and although it is possible to find a numerical relation between all the orbits (even using bezier curves or polygon decomposition, why not) the interest of this in a post-Newton and post-Kepler world does not appear to me.

Best Regards,
Arnaud Lecuyot  arnaud.lecuyot@breathemail.net

Dr. Siepmann responds:
I am sorry that it took me so long to get back to you but I had been gone for several weeks. Thank you for your well thought out letter.
I liken the angle of photon deviation (APD) as being a way to track the differential density of space. Since Space can not be seen, we can only analyze it indirectly. The Space Constant (SC) is simply put a conversion factor for converting the APD to m/s^2. Ultimately, the importance of my theory is that if proven correct, it will validate that Space physically exists and that time is constant, not relative. Once way of proving it is by finding the APD for any astronomical body for which we know the mass, and see if my calculations hold. Unfortunately though the difference will likely not be significant unless it is a very massive object or very dense (i.e. a black hole). For instance, using the Schwarzschild radius formula you get 2950m for a 1 solar mass black hole, while using my theory, we get 938m. I guess that time will tell who is right.
Thank you for you comments and insight.

Thanks for Honesty in Science

First let me thank you for presenting the true facts [re: The Truth about Cancer].  It is quite refreshing, as I'm only a machinist, I have always thought and felt that the research done on smoking was biased or presented incorrectly for years. I've never liked the propaganda hype used to propel the Stop Smoking Bandwagon. It almost seems that we are heading into Prohibition Area again, as was done with alcohol in the '20s.

Thanks again for some honest data.

Jim Durow   jddc1@mchsi.com