The Principle Of Similitude

[Guest Domenico]

With the proviso that for our purpose the field and free (optical) space are one and the same and that they both signify a storage place for energy, let me begin my discourse by presenting a subjective construct and then, if spurred by the readers, amplify the matter at hand and elaborate on it as the case demands it.

I enter at once upon the argument by saying that the general nature of free (optical) space is that of a neutral electromagnetic field; a field where electrically charged particles, due to strong magnetic forces, behave as though they have no charge. A field that we can easily imagine to consist of an infinite number of electromagnetic point-sources processing time and/or space, processing all lengths of time and/or space; a field whose electromagnetic energy is the product of a mutual interaction between electric forces and fields and magnetic forces and fields.

What we have then is an existing system, which we call universe, characterized by an ongoing electromagnetic process for the expansion of time and the extension of space. The linear and non-linear projections of the electromagnetic field as intended in my work, and as specified in my thread «the dual nature of space» in the “Alternative theories forum”, are in my opinion a grand step towards a major understanding of the laws of nature.

Give me leave now to penetrate, or at least try to penetrate, a bit deeper into these laws. Give me leave to introduce the three janus-faced physical properties of nature, here they are:

energy ↔ mass

inertia ↔ gravitation

space ↔ matter

At first glance and if you my reader keep to yourself they appear to be and will remain six properties. On the other hand if you like to ask some questions, I will try my best to explain why I have arrived at the conclusion that the properties are three, a fully fledged three.

I shall now specify a point which is, one might say, of minor import. I have called my theorem «the principle of similitude» because what we are about to see, hopefully through a debate with questions and answers on both sides, shows no equivalence as such, only a projection characterized by its own modified size. To satisfy the mathematically trained mind, I shall herewith recall the transformation of similitude. In rectangular coordinates, I can and will write:

 

xʹ= kx, yʹ= ky

where k is the ratio of similitude. Seen this way, the striking similarity of energy and mass, inertia and gravitation, and finally, space and matter points in the direction of an unmistakable existence of two aspects of the same thing in all of these three physical properties. More precisely, and to be consistent with the theory herein advanced;

energy, inertia, and space

are the pristine form of the electromagnetic wave which moves at the speed of light in a world where time is not and all is space. Their respective complements, that is:

mass, gravitation, and matter

are the aggregate form of the electromagnetic wave now a particle and as such no longer part of free (optical) space, but just a local member of a world where space is not and all is time. Actually, I don’t know how things stand out there in space and what a photon would say if it could tell its story. I do know though that here in our time-world space exists in small amounts or better still in bits (very tiny bits indeed).

With the precise intent to help understand the enunciated theorem, I shall mention here, as an example, Einstein’s «principle of equivalence». Let me first pass on to you some dictionary voices or concept definitions.

The adjective equivalent means: (i) to have equal value, although being not equal; (ii) to be in relation; to have equal meaning.

The noun equivalence means: (i) equality of values; (ii) the condition of being equal or equivalent in value, function, etc; (iii) the state or fact of being equivalent; equality in value, force, significance, etc.

The concept «principle of equivalence» signifies: that for which phenomena apparently diverse are traceable to the same principles.

I shall now entreat my readers to forgive me if I say that the above definitions are not even close to describing the relationship between energy and mass. Energy as intended by the equivalence principle is what today’s Science calls dark energy and it is negative in character. Energy of free (optical) space, that is: loose energy runs counter to mass which is a quantity of energy contracted in, or trapped by, matter. The first one pushes out the second one pulls in. A big difference, my friends. Further, and as a side piece, I shall mention a fourth janus-faced active member of Einstein’s field equations of gravitation; I am referring to the T^ik, the stress energy tensor which has the role of representing (1) the mass of matter exercising the real gravitational pull sitting on the right end side of the equations, and (2) the rest mass (loose energy) of the space-time under consideration which belongs to the left end side of the equations. I must apologise for being so brief with something important such as the T^ik. If there is out there a relativist, I will be pleased to elaborate further.

I will now close the thread with a reminder that free (optical) space is the seat of expanding energy moving at the speed of light and it is also the seat where we may want to know the gravitational forces operating at a certain point whose coordinates (once chosen) imply that energy at that point can only be repulsive.

[Rade]

So, are you saying that mass has no energy not given to it by free (optical) space ?

[Guest Domenico]

So, are you saying that mass has no energy not given to it by free (optical) space ?

No, I am not saying that. What I said, and if I may I will quote myself, is <Energy of free (optical) space, that is: loose energy runs counter to mass which is a quantity of energy contracted in, or trapped by, matter. The first one pushes out the second one pulls in. A big difference, my friends.>

To clear the point, I should add that energy to become what we call mass first has to be forced out, from what I call the space-world, by a disturbance not necessarily electromagnetic in nature and then as a train-of-waves or energy-packet or space-envelope join, as a newly born particle, what I call the time-world.

Further, this is what I say in my work perhaps a bit heavy handed and if that’s the way you see it I apologise for it. <<Here, I must leave the main trail to point out that what I am arguing is not the equivalence between energy and mass; my argument is that energy by itself and in itself is repulsive. To make electromagnetic energy attractive and be eligible to be represented by a mass density at a given location, there are a few compulsory steps dictated by nature itself; they are: (i) a train of waves must be torn away from the time-fabric to materialize as a particle, (ii) given enough time the particle becomes a hydrogen atom, (iii) given enough time the hydrogen atom is taken in and fused to similar atoms by small and big stars, (iv) the stellar bodies, given enough time, will collapse and will throw off their elements, (v) given enough time, these stars will reach the end of their main sequence at which time some of them will become novae or supernovae and their content will be ejected to enrich afterwards the formation of planets.

In the course of these events, a given amount of free (optical) space has been compressed to become what is called matter and has the properties of mass. It seems to be clear, then, that one cannot just take a given region of free space and assign to it a quantitative value in the sense of mass.>>

To round off for the closing, and to honour my own principle of similitude, I shall here say that matter is none other than space in bulk. If space, as I sustain in my work, is chock-full with negative energy identifiable with electromagnetic radiation or better still with electromagnetic waves expanding in time and extending in space; than, matter can only be a space replica only a much more compacted replica as justly and rightly Einstein has demonstrated with his equation E=mc².

Needless to say that all this is very much subjective, at least for the time being. Also, I must apologise if I use the imperative mode, it’s just my writing style. I prefer to be parsimonious with words rather than excuse myself at each step of the way.

[Rade]

To clear the point, I should add that energy to become what we call mass first has to be forced out, from what I call the space-world, by a disturbance not necessarily electromagnetic in nature and then as a train-of-waves or energy-packet or space-envelope join, as a newly born particle, what I call the time-world.

So, the first disturbance for our universe would be what caused the "big bang"--correct ? That is, the big bang resulted when pure energy was forced out (by a primary energy disturbance) from the "space-world" (which would be a space prior to the "optical space" of our universe). And this energy so forced out took the form of a train-of-energy-waves that had properties to allow for the train-of-energy-waves to unite, thus form "mass" as a newly born particle within the "time-world" that we call our UNIVERSE. Is this correct ?

 

If I understand correctly, then it must be that you do not accept the space-time concept of Einstein as being related to mass, given that your view of the space-world cannot have mass, only pure energy, either as a primal disturbance or as the train-of-energy-waves forced out. In other words, in your view, the space-world and time-world are separate (pre-Einstein physics), and the concept of superposed and united "space-time" as proposed by Einstein is false--would this be correct ?

 

..my argument is that energy by itself and in itself is repulsive.

But' date=' I do not understand how you can support this argument because you first stated that the train-of-energy-waves that were pushed out of space-world by the primal disturbance have the ability to UNITE to form a newly born particle. So, it is not at all clear to me what you claim with your argument about "energy-in-itself" ALWAYS being repulsive--do you see my problem understanding you ?

 

To make electromagnetic energy attractive and be eligible to be represented by a mass density at a given location, there are a few compulsory steps dictated by nature itself; they are: (i) a train of waves must be torn away from the time-fabric to materialize as a particle,...

But, this contradicts what you said above. You first made the claim that the train-of energy-waves are torn away (by a primal disturbance--more a push than a pull) from "SPACE-WORLD" ! Now you turn the argument to claim that the train-of-energy-waves are pushed away from the "TIME-FABRIC", which contradicts your first claim. So, again do you see the problem I am having understanding you argument ?

 

It would seem to me that your second claim is false. It seems to me that the correct view (given your hypothesis) is that the train-of-energy waves are torn away from the "SPACE-FABRIC" (that is, torn away from the fabric of the space-world that forms the inner most boundary of that which contains the pure energy), and that this process of pure energy being torn away from space-world results in the formation of the TIME-FABRIC that allows a particle of mass to materialize (a coming to be). So, I would argue that the inner most boundary of the fabric of the "space-world" is transformed into the outer most boundary of the fabric of the "time-world" with the result being the formation of mass with an outer boundary. Is this even close to what you are saying ?

 

..given enough time the particle becomes a hydrogen atom

Well, before the "atom" first must be formed separately the proton with (+) charge and the electron with (-) charge. So, it cannot be that the train-of energy-waves forms ONE TYPE OF PARTICLE (the H2 atom). Well before this event it must form at minimum two types of primal particles, one that will form positive charge (call it proton) and a second that will form negative charge (call it electron). And, of course, all this discussion of "atoms" needs to be taken to the microscopic level of the quarks and gluons and electrons and other such fundamental field particles.

[Guest Domenico]

So, the first disturbance for our universe would be what caused the "big bang"--correct ? That is, the big bang resulted when pure energy was forced out (by a primary energy disturbance) from the "space-world" (which would be a space prior to the "optical space" of our universe). And this energy so forced out took the form of a train-of-energy-waves that had properties to allow for the train-of-energy-waves to unite, thus form "mass" as a newly born particle within the "time-world" that we call our UNIVERSE. Is this correct ?

To your first paragraph my answer is in the negative. No, I never spoke of big bang or cosmology. Further, take the word “disturbance” in its accepted meaning of interference to the electromagnetic field which, according to my way of thinking, is a permanently expanding and/or extending feature of free (optical) space. If you strike a match and hold it alight for a second, you have burned and/or excited a few millions of electromagnetic waves; that’s a mechanical disturbance. If you say hello into your mobile phone, you have imprinted a few millions of electromagnetic waves; that’s an electromagnetic disturbance.

Free (optical) space is what Science improperly calls “vacuum energy”. The word vacuum is of Latin extraction and is the neuter of the adjective vacuus which means “empty”. I don’t understand what could mean something empty containing energy.

Since space and matter, as per my principle of similitude, are chips from the same block, what I call free space is the opposite or placed against space contracted or if you prefer shrunken inside matter. The adjective optical is there to make a distinction in kind between free space out there and free space in front of you sitting on your desk and drawing on a piece of paper a triangle. The triangle on your paper has got 3 measurable angles, the one in free (optical) space have only two measurable angles. What that means is that Riemann space should have never been used for “Relativity” purposes, but that’s another story.

I have used the expressions time-world and space-world to try to make things easier; it looks like I made things worst, I am sorry. What is meant here is what in my thread “On the nature of Time and Space” I presented with Pythagoras triangle. In there I presented the three options: (1) the time or stationary world, (2) the space or moving-at-the-speed-of-the-process world, and (3) the one in between; that is, what Einstein called Relativity.

A train-of-waves is a plain wave-packet nothing else. For example, by lighting a match we have burned and/or excited a few millions of electromagnetic waves. At that very instant a train-of-waves was forced to leave what I call the time-mesh which could be called time-fabric, the dielectric field, the covariant ether, the subquantum level or whatever. The train-of-waves were running at the speed of light and were forced to leave that world (the space-world) and land into the stationary world (time-world) as a particle. The waves had no choice, Rade. Waves are pure energy and they belong to space, particles have mass and they belong to time. Notwithstanding the ongoing formalism, particles cannot run at the speed of light, not even at a fraction of it. As any experimenter will tell you, a particle on leaving its sub-dimension of time will disintegrate in a flash of fireworks and that’s the end of it.

 

If I understand correctly, then it must be that you do not accept the space-time concept of Einstein as being related to mass, given that your view of the space-world cannot have mass, only pure energy, either as a primal disturbance or as the train-of-energy-waves forced out. In other words, in your view, the space-world and time-world are separate (pre-Einstein physics), and the concept of superposed and united "space-time" as proposed by Einstein is false--would this be correct ?

To your second paragraph my answer is in the positive. Yes, I reject the space-time concept and, if I am allowed the freedom of thought, I shall now give some valid reasons for it.

Back in 1908, only a couple of years after the ether was declared by Einstein to be superfluous to all electromagnetic phenomena; Minkowski, mathematician extraordinaire, presented to the world his space-time concept. By 1908 however, the notion that space was empty had already gained support by the scientific community at large and Minkowski must have been aware that space with its amorphous emptiness was not much of a mathematical contributor to the proposed space-time union. So much so, in fact, that he cautiously said, and I quote: to avoid speaking of space or of emptiness, we may define this quantity (the speed of light in vacuo) in another way, as the ratio of the electromagnetic to the electrostatic unit of electricity (¹). Here, I register three important things: (1) the emptiness of space, (2) Minkowski worried about it because he didn’t know the inner structure of space, or time for that matter, and (3) the hyphen in-between space and time.

Five years later Einstein had already done some ground work, strong of Grossman’s mathematics was now heading like a bull towards his General Relativity. The emptiness of space is quietly kept in the shade, the hyphen in-between space and time is gone, the world is heading towards the 1st world war and everything seems to be under control. Two years later we have a composite expression with two words and one meaning: spacetime.

Needless here to say that Einstein had no clue what space and time would look like with no clothes on. A hundred years down the road no one can tell you what is the inner structure of space and the inner structure of time. Do you see, Rade, why I take cosmology with the tweezers? Thirteen and a half billion years of space in-between observer and object observed, a lot of abstruse theories in the name of Science, and Science and scientists alike don’t know what space is made of. How about that? To get a very, very hazy picture one must be the Son of God.

Einstein and spacetime.., and relativity? That’s another story, a long story.

(¹) The Principle of Relativity - by Lorentz Einstein Minkowski and Weyl.

 

But, I do not understand how you can support this argument because you first stated that the train-of-energy-waves that were pushed out of space-world by the primal disturbance have the ability to UNITE to form a newly born particle. So, it is not at all clear to me what you claim with your argument about "energy-in-itself" ALWAYS being repulsive--do you see my problem understanding you ?

My answer to your third paragraph is: yes Rade I see your problem understanding me. Here and now I shall try to clarify your questions. I never said the words “train-of-energy-waves”. I said train-of-waves which is also called a wave-packet. I never said the words “primal disturbance” because I never made a reference to the big bang or cosmology. I never said the words “ability to UNITE”. As for your “energy-in-itself ALWAYS being repulsive”; yes, you have in front of your very eyes what I have called the principle of similitude which clearly specifies that energy and mass are chips of the same block. Energy by itself (meaning to say: a very small quantity) is always negative, it cannot be anything else. For energy to be positive, it will have to be trapped, or if you prefer contracted, or if you prefer shrunk inside matter. Only then energy (now in bulk and called mass) can be positive. For this to happen, as I have already stated above, will take millions of years.

 

But, this contradicts what you said above. You first made the claim that the train-of energy-waves are torn away (by a primal disturbance--more a push than a pull) from "SPACE-WORLD" ! Now you turn the argument to claim that the train-of-energy-waves are pushed away from the "TIME-FABRIC", which contradicts your first claim. So, again do you see the problem I am having understanding you argument ?

 

It would seem to me that your second claim is false. It seems to me that the correct view (given your hypothesis) is that the train-of-energy waves are torn away from the "SPACE-FABRIC" (that is, torn away from the fabric of the space-world that forms the inner most boundary of that which contains the pure energy), and that this process of pure energy being torn away from space-world results in the formation of the TIME-FABRIC that allows a particle of mass to materialize (a coming to be). So, I would argue that the inner most boundary of the fabric of the "space-world" is transformed into the outer most boundary of the fabric of the "time-world" with the result being the formation of mass with an outer boundary. Is this even close to what you are saying ?

Your paragraphs 4 and 5, have been dealt with just before.

 

Well, before the "atom" first must be formed separately the proton with (+) charge and the electron with (-) charge. So, it cannot be that the train-of energy-waves forms ONE TYPE OF PARTICLE (the H2 atom). Well before this event it must form at minimum two types of primal particles, one that will form positive charge (call it proton) and a second that will form negative charge (call it electron). And, of course, all this discussion of "atoms" needs to be taken to the microscopic level of the quarks and gluons and electrons and other such fundamental field particles.

In your last paragraph you refer to a summary of mine with which I tried to convey the idea that for energy to become mass it will take millions of years. My compendium was articulated in 5 points. I could have done it in 3 and forego 2 steps or I could have done it in 10 and string together, as you say, quark, proton, electron and the like.

[Rade]

...Waves are pure energy and they belong to space, particles have mass and they belong to time.....To your second paragraph my answer is in the positive. Yes, I reject the space-time concept...

Thank you for all your clarifying comments.

 

First, just so I am clear, do you reject both the (1)space-time concept (with hyphen) and (2) spacetime concept (without hyphen) ?

 

Second, suppose we have two moments, we call them M1 & M2. We can also think of moments as the English word "now". You indicate that waves "belong to space". You indicate that "particles with mass belong to time". Normally one would associate a moment with time (such as this and that moment in time), not with space. Thus, would it be your view that mass, given that it belongs to "time" and not to any moment M1 or M2 within time, would have existence as being somewhere intermediate between the two moments, M1 and M2 ? Thus the picture:

 

M1 <------mass (belonging to time) -------->M2

 

Well, if the above is correct, then is must logically follow that in your view, waves, given that they are outside of time, and belong to space, must have existence only within each moment, M1 and M2. Expanding the picture thus:

 

M1 (space) <----mass (time1) ----> M2 (space) <----mass (time2)----> M3 (space)

 

we see that waves that belong to space M2 would have existence within a moment that is intermediate between two times (shown as time1 and time2 in the simple picture given).

 

Using this simple understanding, I can grasp what you may be saying when you say you reject a concept of space-time. The two are separate with time (mass) being that which is intermediate between two moments, while space (waves) is within each moment and is always intermediate between any two times (mass). Thus rather than spacetime as the monism of Einstein, the two are separate yet united as a dialectic, as the heads and tails of a coin ? In a universe of pure space, time does not exist. In a universe of pure mass, space does not exist. Given that our universe is neither pure waves nor pure mass, both space(waves) and time(mass) exist as opposites, not as spacetime.

 

Are any of my comments above close to what you claim ?

[Guest Domenico]

Thank you for all your clarifying comments.

 

First, just so I am clear, do you reject both the (1)space-time concept (with hyphen) and (2) spacetime concept (without hyphen) ?

Yes, I do. In line with my own train-of-thoughts, time and space are physically created by the same process; an electromagnetic process put there by mother nature which, incidentally, when will be fully endorsed by the establishment, Science will have found the scientifically articulated reason for <being and becoming> since the process is an ongoing process from time immemorial.

Sorry for the rumbling. I was saying, although time and space are made by the same process, we cannot couple them together to form a single entity as Minkowski wanted to. We cannot do it precisely because both time and space are physically created by the same process which strictly speaking possesses two outlets: one limited to matter, or to all that stands stationary such as for example you and I, and called «time», and the other limited to free space which can only be operative for everything that moves at the speed of the process itself; for example all kind of electromagnetic radiations such as microwave radiation, infrared light, gamma rays, and so forth, and called «space».

Rade, here it is the reason why I make a distinction in kind between time and space. In space (moving world) all electromagnetic radiations exist and move with time and the word time itself has no meaning. In time (stationary world) living and non-living things exist and move through time and the word space itself has no meaning. There is of course that little bit of space (very tiny indeed) that Einstein took with his Relativity. As for the spacetime with no hyphen. It was all started by a great mathematician responding to the name of Marcel Grossmann and the game is still going on, and going strong with mathematicians of Grossmann’s caliber and even better as the mathematics regarding “the string theory” clearly shows. No, Rade, space is expanding in front of your very eyes at 300 million metres per second and no one can harness such a thing, not even time with all its mighty strength.

 

Second, suppose we have two moments, we call them M1 & M2. We can also think of moments as the English word "now". You indicate that waves "belong to space". You indicate that "particles with mass belong to time". Normally one would associate a moment with time (such as this and that moment in time), not with space. Thus, would it be your view that mass, given that it belongs to "time" and not to any moment M1 or M2 within time, would have existence as being somewhere intermediate between the two moments, M1 and M2 ? Thus the picture:

 

M1 <------mass (belonging to time) -------->M2

 

Well, if the above is correct, then is must logically follow that in your view, waves, given that they are outside of time, and belong to space, must have existence only within each moment, M1 and M2. Expanding the picture thus:

 

M1 (space) <----mass (time1) ----> M2 (space) <----mass (time2)----> M3 (space)

 

we see that waves that belong to space M2 would have existence within a moment that is intermediate between two times (shown as time1 and time2 in the simple picture given).

Yes Rade, I go along with you all the way. Just one thing. You say: “...waves, given that they are outside of time, and they belong to space”. My answer to you would be: If, as per my principle of similitude, space is the tiny baby of the bigmama called matter it follows that the tiny baby called energy is the off spring (as hundreds of fission blasts have shown) of the bigmama called mass. The wave therefore exists in the time-world as compacted energy (called mass) inside matter.

I’ll give you an example of this. The hyperbolic negative curvature may be summarized in the form: <negative curvature = π−matter> where π represents a straight line. Here it is implied that the expansion of the universe is inclusive of matter; that is, the expansion of the universe includes the wavelengths of free space as well as the wavelengths compressed inside matter. This, of course, is synonymous of continuity between space and matter. As for the expansion itself, remember that only space expands while matter, and all the wavelengths trapped within, retains, in the universal expansion, the same celestial coordinates.

 

Using this simple understanding, I can grasp what you may be saying when you say you reject a concept of space-time. The two are separate with time (mass) being that which is intermediate between two moments, while space (waves) is within each moment and is always intermediate between any two times (mass). Thus rather than spacetime as the monism of Einstein, the two are separate yet united as a dialectic, as the heads and tails of a coin ? In a universe of pure space, time does not exist. In a universe of pure mass, space does not exist. Given that our universe is neither pure waves nor pure mass, both space(waves) and time(mass) exist as opposites, not as spacetime.

 

Are any of my comments above close to what you claim ?

Well put, you have illuminated me, although I am not as absolutist as that. There is room for Einstein. Better still, once that time will be accepted as a product of nature, Relativity and all that will naturally be a closed chapter. However, in my thread <on the nature of time and space> Pythagoras’ triangle shows quite clearly that motion affects time; that is, if you run along the abscissa your base line becomes wider. The faster the running, the wider the base line up to the full length of the process where the base line becomes 300 million metres long and the runner, running at the speed of the process, is now a timeless photon.

[Rade]

....Pythagoras’ triangle shows quite clearly that motion affects time; that is, if you run along the abscissa your base line becomes wider. The faster the running, the wider the base line up to the full length of the process where the base line becomes 300 million metres long and the runner, running at the speed of the process, is now a timeless photon.

As I see it, the relationship is that time and motion affect each other as a dialectic, a two way arrow such as this picture [ motion <-------> time ].

 

Concerning the above, would you not agree with Aristotle, his comment in Physics (book IV, Ch 12), that the relationship between motion and time is that "time is a measure of motion and of being moved". And..."things are in time as they are in number"..."the now and the before and the like are in time, just as unit and odd and even are in number". And finally..."since time is a measure of motion, it will be the measure of rest too--indirectly"..."for time is not motion, but number of motion, and what is at rest, also, can be in the number of motion".

[Guest Domenico]

As I see it, the relationship is that time and motion affect each other as a dialectic, a two way arrow such as this picture [ motion <-------> time ].

 

Concerning the above, would you not agree with Aristotle, his comment in Physics (book IV, Ch 12), that the relationship between motion and time is that "time is a measure of motion and of being moved". And..."things are in time as they are in number"..."the now and the before and the like are in time, just as unit and odd and even are in number". And finally..."since time is a measure of motion, it will be the measure of rest too--indirectly"..."for time is not motion, but number of motion, and what is at rest, also, can be in the number of motion".

 

Yes, for me it is a pleasure to see how well he describes the concept of what we call “time”. As a matter of fact, it was back in 1957 while reading for the first time, as a young man, his “Physics” book that I got the idea of my electromagnetic process which I applied only to “time” and after some years I extended it to “space”. It is amazing how 2 and a half thousand years ago a man would think that way. We are lucky to be able to read books like the one you just mentioned.