Dear JP Siepmann,

I am glad to know that journal is in existence!  I believe this is one of the ways to publish against the official resistance against open mind.

Steven Rado  <srado@westworld.com>

[Steven Rado is the author of Aethero-Kinematics which is outlined in the Journal]

The following is a discussion between Dr. Ghitis and Dr. Siepmann:

Dr. Ghitis: I'm writing mainly because in a recent Science there is a mention of a physicist that does not read journals, preferring the onlines, and this reminded me of the Science article attacking your Journal!  I'm curious to hear pertinent commentaries from you.

Dr. Siepmann’s reply:   A smart man.  Print Journals are out of date by at least 6 months by the time they are published.  Also those print journals that do not have an on-line version are in the stone age.  Finally, it supports those journals that do not charge money for knowledge such as ours.

Dr. Ghitis later asked about my view on what “mass” is and the use of the terminology of  “gravitational energy” being used. My reply is below:

Re: mass. The way that you approach it is correct.  The way that I and others in the know understand it, is that mass is nothing but a quantifying of gravity, i.e. the greater the gravitational force of a body, the greater the mass.  Mass has been indirectly found as a derivation of weight (m=w/g) and celestially by the gravitational force exerted by a body then a relative comparison to known mass is done to determine the mass of said body. As for inertia, I might therefore state that it is a property of matter rather than mass, but I am probably splitting hairs at this point.

Just as mass does not really exist but is rather a man made concept, I also believe that gravity is too.  Gravity does not exist but rather it is a characteristic of space. It is like saying that the person is moving at 65mph, rather than it is the car with the person in it that is traveling at 65mph.

I also therefore disagree with the term "gravitational energy."  When we sit down on a chair, the cushion indents.  Then we stand up the cushion exerts a force upward as it comes back to its original state.  Would one say that the cushion is producing energy?  Gravity as a force or energy does not exist, but rather it is a property of space that resists being pushed aside by mass. 

Dr. Siepmann   <archive@journaloftheoretics.com>

The following is a discussion between Dr. Tilak and Dr. Siepmann:

Dr. Tilak:  I am thankful to Dr. JP Siepmann AND the Journal of Theoretics, which I regard as the most advanced Journal that surveys the modern scientific literature on the very EDGE of human knowledge. I am especially thankful for the hint in the statement that: "Additionally put forth is the theory that gravity results from the internal stress of the electric field of individual charges which minutely distort space, and this would also explain the observed dependence of clock rate on gravitational potential."

Murray Gell-Mann in his "The Quark And The Jaguar" does say that there is only one theory of photon. I have long had the suspicion that the gravitational effect is a result of some other force or effect! The gravitational constant -- in my opinion -- has to be capable of functioning at 'infinite dilution' and this -- in my opinion -- is only possible with the mediation of photon! Photon as virtual particle is everywhere and also IS the mediator of the electromagnetic force.

I have further questions about this view about gravity. How does this derivation of gravitational effect relate to the so called DARK MATTER which does not interact with the electromagnetic force?

Dr. Siepmann:  The electromagnetic force would still be a separate force from the force of displaced Space from "dark matter," visible matter, or confined energy.  On the atomic level particles are basically confined energy and thereby displacing the "energy" that has been called zpf, background energy, or as I have referred to as Space.  The force exerted by Space in my theory would be small compared to the electromagnetic force.  I have not yet calculated out the force of displaced Space on a particle level, but I will be doing so soon.  I will be presenting this and new information this July in St. Petersburg, Russia at the International Congress-2000.

Dr. Tilak also asked about my concept of time:  In my theory and in general, "time" is not a physical property of the universe but rather a man made concept. 

Time has been defined as the linear progression of a periodic event.  In ancient times this was considered to be the day which was later defined as 24 hours.  As man became more sophisticated, we used hourglasses and pendulums.  Even now we are using the transition of energy states of the cesium atom.  The best definition of time is the lifecycle of the universe from beginning to end and we have just tried to divide this into small units.  I think that the best practical definition of time is "the distance that interval it takes light to travel a set distance."   Once second would be the interval that it takes light to travel 3E8 meters in a vacuum state. We define distance by using light, so why not time?  Especially when light seems to be a universal constant.

So in answer to your question, I do not think that time or its asymmetry would play a role.  The concept of "space-time" is but a way for science to quantify that which it did not understand.  Once one understands that "Space" is a physical entity rather than "nothing" then it all makes sense both conceptually and mathematically.

Dr. Tilak:  I was very pleased with you kindness in answering my question. Your answers have a great directness and clarity in them. Time is more of a phenomenlogic concept. The Vedic sages have used time to relate creationary acts,

hierarchical stabilization of field annihilatory act as well as the dynamic power of energy, energy having the longest duration! I can recognize that you are calling this energy as light. I was fascinated that your judgment to measure time in terms of how much time it takes to cover a distance is also essence of Vedic philosophy. 

Then the phenomenologic time is measured in terms of the BREATHING PROCESS OF THE SPIRIT. Breathing process brings the biologically related phenomenologic time. This apparently is the time kept by consciousness. And the scale of this time is eternal. It is interesting to note that you also indicate that: "The best definition of time is the lifecycle of the universe from beginning to end!"

I was very fascinate by your statement that: "The concept of "space-time" is but a way for science to quantify that which it did not understand." George Hamilton -- if I understood that adequately -- seemed to have indicated that space-time-intervals associated with all phenomena have their maxima as well as minima in terms of energy? Is the arrow of time then also only a humanistically projected concept?

Manohar A. Tilak 

matilak@usit.net

Journal Home Page

© Journal of Theoretics, Inc. 2000  (Note: all submissions become the property of the Journal)