Observational Physics and Inertia

Dear Dr. Siepmann,

       I don’t know if someone else has just thought of the things like I’ve been reading in your writings, but I agree amazingly with your notion of "Space Density" and "Absolute Time".
Clear equations, not complicated.  One thing perhaps, what your explanation of "Inertia" within "Observational Physics". You just did not mention it.

Regards,

Roberto Neves    robneves@sti.com.br 

Response from Dr. Siepmann: 

      Thank you for your comments. Very good question about inertia. The best explanation that I have come up with is that inertia is the force need to overcome the vector force of gravity (Space). For instance, if you let go of an object a hundred feet above the Earth's surface and apply a downward (vertical) force, there is no inertia to overcome as the force applied was in the same direction as the push of Space (gravity). Now if you try applying a horizontal force then there is an "inertia" that must be overcome. It is kind of like swimming in a river, if you swim in the direction of the current there is no need for additional force but the further you turn upstream, the more force that is needed.

      Keep up the inquisitive and insightful thought.

Sincerely,
Dr. Siepmann

More about Time

Dear Editor,

        My first reply from my first published article with your journal.  I have sent you a copy in case you want to edit my reply and publish it.  I think it is a moment of true inspiration! ;-
Some of these ideas have been present for a while but I never quite knew how to arrange them or output them. You could perhaps call it "Duality State Logic", which is realy what ALL of
my writings are about. I may still have to work on this, but for the moment I am happy with what I have written.

regards,
glen angus graham    redshift@senet.com.au 

From Bert Schreiber: 

Dear Mr. Graham:

        I read your comments in the latest JOT [Journal of Theoretics Vol. 4-1 "A Contrary View of Time"] and was impressed with your thinking. You got very close to the truth, but missed in the end.
        Every past and current physics theory is false. There can be NO PRESENT with continuous time. A 'present' can only exist when time is of a quantum nature. Planck's Constant (h) can only exist when there is a finite time [where] the affect of the effect (energy) can be applied.  Zero (point) time results in infinite inertia and no mass would start to move in the first place!!!!  Hence, h can only be in whole numbers (multiples of itself). This fact is totally ignored as you cannot have it both ways, as only one can be true and exist.
       I do not think I have contacted your before, but never the less I suggest you go to my website at (no www.) http://web2.airmail.net/nptbs and read over my home page and the various sections. I suggest you start with EASY MONEY II and then the SIDE PAPERS.

Respectfully,
Bert Schreiber (Mr.)  charlesbert_99@yahoo.com

Response From Glen Graham:

Bert,
       Thanks for the email. To explain my use of the term "Present Time":

        Planck's constant can only exist from a relativistic perspective. The "particle" state of matter is a relativistic state. The "wave" state of matter is also a relativistic state. Quantum Mechanics is just General Relativity subject to the laws of Special Relativity (Size/Distance Duality) Quantum reality only exists from a relativistic perspective. It is not possible for a photon to be a non-divisional singular entity. Just because we can't - doesn't make it so. Any finite reality can be sub-divided.
        All laws associated with quantum behaviour must be taken with a pinch of salt. How does Planck's constant effect a waveform state? I've never heard anyone talk about it from this perspective. I suspect they have no idea how it could effect a wave form state. Yet waveform states are critical to our understanding of the universe.
        The "present" time is effectively the infinitely sub-divisible state of consciousness/life and everything. Existing within the finite boundaries of birth and death of consciousness/life and everything. You can have it both ways if you learn how and when to correctly alter your
relativistic perspective. This is what the uncertainty principle is all about, this is what Quantum mechanics is all about, this is what wave/particle duality is all about.
        This is also why we do not have a unified theory because science doesn't understand how to alter its relativistic perspective. We have discovered everything we need to know about the particle and wave nature of the universe. Mathematics will NEVER deliver a unified theory. "Duality-State Logic" is the science of the future.
        Time IS a quantum nature. It is a wave/particle duality nature. Mathematics is a quantitizational process. "1" is the only true mathematical value. No other value can be used to describe the universe. Any other number existing, is the evidence of a shift in relativistic focus. A shift into the sub-state of "1". Anything to do with math, is a sub-divisional process of
a singular reality represented by the number "1".  It is an exercise in quantitizational focus.
         Mathematics is only a language of description. It is not a language of explanation. It is not a science.  Infinity can only exist within finite parameters, via the process of infinite sub-division.  An unbound infinity is basically a syntax error, both inside a computer and in the real universe.
         Quantitization is only a process of focus. The sub-division of a relativistic whole. This also means that a singularity can also only exist from a relativistic perspective. (A galaxy looks like a star from a long distance away - go far enough away and all motion/animation/quantitization will appear to have stopped).
         For OUR universe to exist, there must be some kind of finite boundary to our reality. I suspect that it is the energy quanta packet that lies between ZERO degrees Kelvin, and entering a black hole. (I see the Electromagnetic Spectrum as an energy quanta packet under the microscope).  It is the setting of finite parameters. Once they have been set, infinite sub-division is possible.

        Time is sub-division.  Sub-Division is time.

        This is what drives the uncertainty principle. Trying to determine both vectors at once is the equivalent of an unbound "analogue" state. Syntax error is proportional.  "Digitize" or quantize your focus, and you start to formulate finite parameters.  100% as a true non-relativistic state is always going to be impossible.
         When I talk about the present, I really mean the conscious state of being.  But I also mean the existence of matter within the universe. No present, no finite parameters, no sub-division within those finite parameters, no quantitization, no nothing other than a singularity. Remove "the present" and you enter an event horizon.
         This is what I was referring to. You may have to read it a few times to get a grip on what I am trying to say [since] I have crammed many years of thought into a very short reply!  I hope you have plenty beer in your fridge!! ;-

Thank you for your email.

regards,
glen
[glen angus graham   redshift@senet.com.au ]

And Even More on Smoking and Cancer

[Dr. Siepmann responds to an earnest writer from Singapore, who had questions about the article "Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer",  Vol. 1-4, Journal of Theoretics.  Name withheld since author is a minor and buying cigarettes is illegal in Singapore as well as many other countries.]

       Smoking is but one factor in getting cancer (lung, breast, etc.). In most cancers there needs to be three things to happen in order to get cancer in general: 1)  a genetic predisposition, 2) an Initiator (a chemical or substance in our environment that can cause cancer to arise, and 3) a promoter (something that lets the cancer grow, i.e. lowered immune system by old age, HIV, etc.). Smoking is most likely an initiator. There is no substance that truly "causes" cancer in that if a person is exposed to it, that they will get cancer. That's why smoking and other factors are called "risk factors", they just increase the risk of someone getting cancer. Let's say that your chance of getting lung cancer is 0.5% but if you smoke, it may be increased to 3%. Smoking has made your risk of getting lung cancer go up 600% or increase 6x. 600% sounds like a lot, but you have to keep in mind what the normal risk of getting something is. So even if smoking has increased your risk of getting cancer by 600%, you chance of getting lung cancer is only 3%.
       I definitely would encourage you to quit smoking, not only because there is an increased risk (notice that I used "increased risk" rather than "cause" which would be false) in getting various cancers, but it does cause the destruction of the lung's reserve capacity over time and if cigarettes are used for more than 40 years (2-3ppd), smoking can "cause" (I use the term correctly here because the chance of getting emphysema in that case is over 50% and therefore could be called a "cause") emphysema. In fact using cigarettes at over 2 ppd [packs/day] for over 10 years will lead to some destruction of lung tissue, though it may not be enough for you to notice.
       In summary, you are definitely taking a risk to your health by smoking, the question is whether or not the risk is acceptable to you or not. To you and everyone else, I would recommend not smoking. But if you decide you are going to, at least now you know some of the "risks."

Sincerely,

Dr. Siepmann

*   *   *   *  *

And from another reader:

     I see you point out the risk of developing lung cancer for smokers is much lower than portrayed in the literature. Then an argument is made by you that, somehow, tobacco isn't as dangerous as we know it really is. 
       When taking into account the increased risks of heart attacks and other carcinomas, do you think it is wise to really state that the risk isn't as great as it is portrayed? 

        You make a pretty lousy argument to anyone with a 5th-grade education. 

Travis    trasvdb@pacbell.net 

Response from Dr. Siepmann: 

        You must first read something before you comment on it. I never put forth any argument like that. Never did I say that smoking wasn't unhealthy or bad for you, only that the correlation between smoking and lung cancer is not a cause and effect relationship as portrayed not only in the lay press but also in the medical literature. I do not smoke cigarettes and I don't recommend that anyone should, but we should be truthful with people rather than the PC thinking that the unwashed masses are too ignorant to understand the truth and that we need to slant it for them (can you say "1984"). 

       Besides at least a 5th grader knows how to read.