On "The Collected writings" of Mr.Nehru

[Gopi]

Hi everyone,

After a read-through on Mr.Nehru's book "The collected writings of KVK Nehru",these were a few of the points which came to my attention:

Dialogue between KVK and DBL- part I

Answer 11[DBL]:There are three diagrams shown,in the first,the photon and gravitation are shown w.r.t Natural reference frame,and in the second,with the conventional reference frame.In the the third,Larson mentions that "..the gravitational motion has now been modified by random motion and now has a magnitude 'y'...".What is the random motion being referred to here?

Question 17[KVK]:Here,the kind of motion where space and time have opposing scalar natures,i.e. outward and inward,are mentioned.I am tracing the development like this:

a) scalar motion s/t

b) two kinds of scalar progression outward and inward.

c) [+s]/[-t] = [-s]/[+t] both are indistinguishable.[shrinking,inward motion]

d) [+s]/[+t] = [-s]/[-t] [outward motion]

Why can't we distinguish between c and d w.r.t. the natural reference system?[see Larson's answer]

Question 19[footnote]If this really is the case i.e. if two particles are moving with v1 and v2,their relative speed becomes [v1+v2]/[1+v1+v2],if we replace the particles with photons,their relative speed become 2/3!!I think there is some error in the development...

"Law of conservation of direction"paper:

In counterspace,rotation is primary.In the paper,it is written that "Because of the discrete unit limitation,a mere change of direction without any magnitude is not possible.Hence a unit of rotation involves half a unit of 1-D space element in each of its component rotations"Why is the association of the unit of space with the birotation instead of the rotation?

"Superconductivity:A time region phenomenon"

It is written "One can therefore conjecture that the circularly polarized photon ought to behave like a fermion" in section 2.3.I feel this needs to be corrected,as the photon continues as a birotation,and the birotation makes the solid angle character of the original rotation disappear,as mentioned in another of Nehru's paper:"Some thoughts on spin".

Section 6.1: About Larson's quote of radiation originating 3-dimensionally and makes contact one dimensionally,how does this make the radiation energy four-dimensional?Shouldn't it make the energy proportional to the cube of the temperature[one dimensional]?

Dialogue with DBL II:

Question 37:

Let Spatial speed = v cm/s

v/c = 1/[n+1]

Isn't 'n' necessarily a natural number here?But the euclidean measurements have real numbers,so how can we have discrete v?

Cheers,

Gopi

[Gopi]

Gopi wrote:

Question 17[KVK]:Here,the kind of motion where space and time have opposing scalar natures,i.e. outward and inward,are mentioned.I am tracing the development like this:

a) scalar motion s/t

b) two kinds of scalar progression outward and inward.

c) [+s]/[-t] = [-s]/[+t] both are indistinguishable.[shrinking,inward motion]

d) [+s]/[+t] = [-s]/[-t] [outward motion]

I think the key question here is, what is this inward and outward referring to? Larson seems to be using this meaning at a level in between the natural reference system [which doesn’t have any “outwards” to it], and the conventional reference system. When we take the natural reference system, the unit speed datum, as being “outward” in the conventional reference system, then all the speeds in the conventional reference become outward.

Larson uses this analogy:

Outward: Expanding balloon

Inward: Shrinking balloon

But the frame of reference? Stationary balloon.

This polarity can arise only when we have a conventional reference system. But which is this system here, i.e. where is its origin?

So what do the ‘reversals’ signify now?

Gopi wrote:

Why can't we distinguish between c and d w.r.t. the natural reference system?[see Larson's answer]

I think it is not correct to attach polarities to both the numerator and the denominator in the fractions written… either s or t can take up the plus and minus, and not both. When one component has a vectorial behavior the other has to be a scalar progression. And the polarities attached, have to be in the conventional reference system, and the resulting motion represented is hence equivalent to the natural datum.

[bperet]

gopiv wrote:

I think the key question here is, what is this inward and outward referring to?

This polarity can arise only when we have a conventional reference system. But which is this system here, i.e. where is its origin?

When Larson talks about 'inward' and 'outward' motion, the origin of reference is an absolute location on the natural reference system, which are all displacements of zero (origins).

No motion, like the photon, translates to being stuck at one, absolute location. The motion is then carried by the progression of the system.

Inward and outward motion occur when a motion is no longer attached to a specific absolute location, and starts jumping between them. Outward in time = inward in space, so technically there is no "inward", just "outward" in the other aspect. ONE unit of "inward" motion basically neutralizes the motion of the progression. Each time the progression carries the motion one step further out, it hops to a new location to put it back where it started. This is the nature of SHM. Two units of inward motion is basically "inverse progression", rather than flying apart, the motions are flying together -- gravitation.

Outward motion is then moving faster outward than the progression. Greater-than-unity outward motion in space is not directly detectable by us, because it is faster than the speed of light (the outward motion of the progression defining the speed of light). But it is INWARD in time, so it shows up in the cosmic sector as temporal gravitation.

gopiv wrote:

So what do the ‘reversals’ signify now?

In RS2, they exist as a product of bi-rotation (two interacting rotations forming a SHM). This differs from Larson because it is a natural consequence of the polar geometry of the time region, which Larson was unaware of.

Larson claims his 'direction reversals' are totally random, and thus a statistical average gives 50/50 of being inward or outward, and that theoretically results in a SHM. But I'm sure you can see the flaws in this logic, since the direction reversal of speed does not result in the accelerated motion of SHM. Neither does an overall statistical distribution of 50:50 create a regular wave... to prove that, just have the computer generate a random sequence of "in:out" and see how regular the waves are... they are not regular, at all.

Also remember that in RS2, the natural reference system is an Affine projection--not a Euclidean one (since Euclidean transformations are scale invariant -- can't have scalar motion when the scale is fixed at Unity!!)

Gopi wrote:

I think it is not correct to attach polarities to both the numerator and the denominator in the fractions written… either s or t can take up the plus and minus, and not both. When one component has a vectorial behavior the other has to be a scalar progression. And the polarities attached, have to be in the conventional reference system, and the resulting motion represented is hence equivalent to the natural datum.

Notation is always going to be a problem, because it is a summary of the motions involved, not the actual speeds. That is why I always stick with the 'ratio' (aka: speed) model when doing simulations. It is easy for a computer to deal with the details of speed, and simple to write a function to extract those complex motions into a notational system or graphic.

I agree with you; since -s = +t, you can only have one negative sign. The only case that is exempt is unit motion, where s=t, and because it is self-contradictory (-1 != +1), in a unit motion, the aspects of space and time do not yet exist. They only appear once non-unit motion is established.