|
1. General
| 1. |
What is Yun-Qi? Why name this
Kingdom Yun-Qi?
|
|
The name Yun-Qi has many meanings
in Chinese culture, and the most it means the one's luck.
Here, the Yun-Qi gets the name from 5-yun and 6-qi. This 5-yun will
dominate all kinds of motions in the Universe including human itself. This
6-qi forms all kinds of matters of this universe.
|
|
|
| 2. |
I'm wondering to what extent
your formulation is just a repackaging of standard relativity.
|
|
Actually it is not. Think about
it, what is the math? What is the coordinates? What is the number? We
indeed know nothing about them today. But Yun-Qi will tell us all.
|
|
|
| 3. |
Are you planning to put the
derivations on the web? Otherwise, are you saying this new force law is a
postulate?
|
|
In Yun-Qi Kingdom, there will be
NO any postulate. Anything will be derived out by using a perfect way ---
I mean the truth way. So it is hard to understand that for you and people
today. Try to read my paper, then you can understand that slowly.
|
|
|
| 4. |
I'm not surprised; no
experiment yet seems to have proved relativity wrong.
|
|
You'll see those contradictions
soon. Especially for "Experiment Hints --- II" I mentioned in my
web.
|
|
|
| 5. |
I don't understand what you
meant by "If we use other force sources". Is your force F =
(1-v^2/c^2)Fo applied to all forces?
|
|
The force factors exist in all
kinds of electrical and magnetic field forces. But for the propel forces, for example, like jet ---- throw air
in the backwards direction, will have no force factor.
Also while the electron pass the speed of light, its measurable properties
will be changed. It looks not like the electron any more (I mean the
measured picture.)
|
|
|
| 6. |
In
math, you can define any ridiculous space with ridiculous rules. But how
to prove that your space is the same as the space we are living in --- the
reality? You haven't shown any experiment on this yet.
|
|
Yun-Qi is all of the
Universe. Yun-Qi is the root of the everything of this Universe.
Everything in the Universe comes from the Yun-Qi.
So every principle you have found today can be derived out from
Yun-Qi. All the knowledge we had got today also can be derived out from
Yun-Qi.
Similarly, if something or some laws that you have used today, are
not able to be derived from Yun-Qi, then it means that the things or laws
are wrong and they are artificial man-made.
Therefore, today's all Science and Knowledge can be treated as the
experiments to examine whether Yun-Qi Kingdom is true or not.
|
|
|
2. Article I
|
1. |
Let d=dorb.
Fundamental 1 implies: 2=2+3d by equation. (85) 2=2+5d by equation. (85) then: =>
2+3d=2+5d by above equation. => 5d=3d by subtracting 2 => 5d/d=3d/d by
dividing by d => 5=3 by equation. (70) So contradiction !! > |
|
| 2. |
On line 85,
if one were to subtract 'a' from both sides, one would obtain b times dorb
= 0, which seems to contradict line 77. |
|
| 3. |
You
basically used the
3D-vector concept (why 3 elements? have you think about that? why not 6 or
9?) to form your math bases and most of your calculation can be redefined
with matrix converting table. The beauty of using vector enrich the
concept of plain numbers, and could bring more variation into the math's world. You might be able to correlate most those new variations to the
reality and re-define the relationship between any objects in the reality. |
|
| 4. |
New variations would not
have anything meaningful if you can not discover any new type of
relationship between them. |
|
| 5. |
You redefine the meaning of
zero and infinity, which I really like. Those zero and infinity disappears
when they combine with others, but stand alone when they are not. |
|
| 6. |
You created two new spaces,
which are one derivation and two derivation of the current space. Though that, you define the space disturbing feature of any moving and
accelerating object, which I like also. But from pure moth point of view,
why you call those two new spaces, and how you explain that three
derivation would not have any real meanings? (In another words, why three
spaces, not infinity spaces? what is so special about two?). |
|
| 7. |
Besides the space disturbing
feature, I have not seen any other new relationship you have discovered
through your theory. Is that what you are going to address in your
following articles? |
|
| 8. |
You point in your website
that, If two objects are moving constantly in different location, they
will cause a mutual affected force. This force will point to each other.
This mutual force is detectable. But why can't I see it in your article I? |
|
| 9. |
Same to above, you point in your website
that, If an object is moving constantly, then the gravitation for this
object will be changed comparing to the rest. This change is detectable. But why can't I see it in your article I? |
|
| 10. |
Similar, you point in your website
that, If object A is moving constantly, and object B is accelerating in
different location, then object A will get a spin and a force which points
to B. And object B will also get a spin plus a force which points to A.
All these four effects are detectable. But why can't I see it in your article I? |
|
|
| 1. |
Let d=dorb. Fundamental 1
implies:
2=2+3d by equation. (85)
2=2+5d by equation. (85)
then:
=> 2+3d=2+5d by above equations.
=> 5d=3d by subtracting 2
=> 5d/d=3d/d by dividing by d
=> 5=3 by equation. (70)
So contradiction !!
|
|
There is NO any contradiction
there. The dorb is a very special number. The writing 2 + 3dorb will give
the two results in the 0th and 1th orders of dorb respectively, it will be
2 in the zeroth order of dorb, or 2+3dorb in the first order of dorb. So
we can not write like this:
2+3dorb=2+5dorb.
Anyway, dorb is equal to zero today, so the above equation is
always true for today's understanding.
The number dorb and turq are magic numbers. They play some important roles in the Universe.
|
|
|
| 2. |
On line 85, if one were to
subtract 'a' from both sides, one would obtain b times dorb = 0, which
seems to contradict line 77.
|
|
The "number" dorb is a
very special "number". Though it looks like zero, but it is NOT
a zero. Though it looks like a non-zero number, but it is also NOT a
non-zero number. So, we can not use today's normal ways to treat
"number" dorb.
To see these, I can use a simple way to show that. If we only consider a
certain number digits as an effective number, say 3-digit, then we may
write done:
2.333123456 ==> 2.333 .... (1)
2.333234567 ==> 2.333 .... (2)
2.332678543 ==> 2.333 .... (3)
Of course we can not say that, since (1)=(2)=(3) in the right, then we
have: 2.333123456 = 2.333234567 = 2.332678543, ==> 0.000123456 =
0.000234567.
Dorb is indeed a magic number like the above. And "number" turq
too.
Please see the above question in the same item.
|
| 3. |
You basically used the
3D-vector concept (why 3 elements? have you think about that? why not 6 or
9?) to form your math bases and most of your calculation can be redefined
with matrix converting table. The beauty of using vector enrich the
concept of plain numbers, and could bring more variation into the moth world. You might be able to correlate most those new variations to the
reality and re-define the relationship between any objects in the reality.
|
|
Yes, there ONLY three dimensions exist in
the Universe. Not in ONE, not in TWO, not in FOUR ... ONLY in THREE.
Yin-Yang Divine and Wu-Xing Divine will show us that. GOD only creates
three dimensions for this Universe.
We can use matrix to express ohitors algebra. My later articles will show
us that. One also can find that way. But that will be different with
today's matrix. We can NOT use matrixes only expressing that.
|
|
|
| 4. |
New variations would not
have anything meaningful if you can not discover any new type of
relationship between them.
|
|
No variations exist except the
variations binding with eeds. Simply speaking, there are NO variables x,
y, z, ONLY xe^1_1, ye^1_2, ze^1_3 exist in the Universe.
To see how ohitors work, you can draw ohitors in three dimensions like
vectors. After apply ohitors algebra on them, you can easily find ohitors'
real physical meanings. You can find what the ohitors will bring to us
clearly.
|
|
|
| 5. |
You redefine the meaning of
zero and infinity, which I really like. Those zero and infinity disappears
when they combine with others, but stand alone when they are not.
|
|
That's NOT redefinition. Number dorb and turq are two realities from the
Universe. but zero and infinity are counted NOT.
|
|
|
| 6. |
You created two new spaces,
which are one derivation and two derivation of the current space. Through
that, you define the space disturbing feature of any moving and
accelerating object, which I like also. But from pure math point of view,
why you call those two new spaces, and how you explain that three
derivation would not have any real meanings? (In another words, why three
spaces, not infinity spaces? what is so special about two?).
|
|
Time is NOT space variable, it is the INTERNAL variable. Time do
NOT have space eeds, but ONLY has internal eed binding with it. So the
differentiation with respect to time will alter its original space to a
new space. This new space is totally different with its original space.
We can not confuse these two spaces together. Otherwise 2/3 of its
reality will be lost.
There are many spaces. How many times of differentiation to time, then how
many spaces you will have.
The real physical meanings for us now is that we are living in the
Velocity Space, not living in the rest space! The MOTIONLESS space is not
observable by human beings.
My second article will discuss that.
|
|
|
| 7. |
Besides the space disturbing
feature, I have not seen any other new relationship you have discovered
through your theory. Is that what you are going to address in your
following articles?
|
|
There still have a lots. Reading Section 8 and Section 9
carefully. You can find lots in it. I didn't explain that, but already
show you. Also yes, it is just the beginning. My second article will show
us more details about article one.
|
|
|
| 8. |
You point in your website
that, If two objects are moving constantly in different location, they
will cause a mutual affected force. This force will point to each other.
This mutual force is detectable. But why can't I see it in your article I?
|
|
Go to Section 8.3. equation 301 in page 34. This equation is for
any i and j. Now take i=j=1. Then we have Mihod^{11} = M1*M2 Miho^{11} =
P1*P2 = (M1 V1)*(M2 V2). Here I have used two objects whose masses are M1
and M2 separately. Then similar to equation 303, we get:
P1*P2=p1(.)p2+p1(*)p2.
Guess what is this first term p1(.)p2 ? You may never realize that
if I don't say, and you may also don't believe that if I say it to you
now. Interesting? OK try it:
This first term is our familiar "Newton's attracted force of
everything". See, how funny? Anyway trust it now, then we can discuss
the rest. Of course, only the distance has been added to their
corresponding terms, then we have today's form: (p1/r)(p2/r)=[v1(.)v2]
M1*M2/r^2 = k M1*M2/r^2. The velocities V1 and V2 are the V-ohitors
centralizing to the center of the Universe, and it's also the relative
scale to its local field speed.
Since it is very hard to explain that to you at present time, I am
sorry I am unable to answer you completely. Even I do so, you may only
think these are just my assumptions. But they are not. My later articles
will reveal all of these to you step by step.
|
|
|
| 9. |
Same to above, you point in your website
that, If an object is moving constantly, then the gravitation for this
object will be changed comparing to the rest. This change is detectable. But why can't I see it in your article I?
|
|
From the above answer, you can easily
get this prediction. The gravity of an object in the earth, only refers to
its rest state with respect to the earth. If moving, then the factor k of
the attracted force will change, since k = v1(.)v2. Of course it will
cause the change of gravity of this object.
|
|
|
| 10. |
Similar, you point in your website
that, If object A is moving constantly, and object B is accelerating in
different location, then object A will get a spin and a force which points
to B. And object B will also get a spin plus a force which points to A.
All these four effects are detectable. But why can't I see it in your article I?
|
|
See equation 384 in page 40. The first term
p(.)g is also a force exerted on both objects that one is moving
constantly and the other is accelerating. In equation 388 and 391, both
equations' second term is the spin that they have got for that situation.
|
|
|
|
|
3.
Relativity
| 1. |
Relativity
not only assumes c is constant, it shows why it must be with the Lorenz
factor you have changed and called your force factor. In your ideas I
don't see why c is constant, how do you explain c being constant, or do
you say it is not? |
|
| 2. |
If you say
that c is not constant, then you have already been proven wrong by many
experiments(e.g. Michaelson and Morely) which have measured it. If say it
is constant, why is it in your ideas? |
|
| 3. |
Your
"force factor" looks like a modified gamma (Lorenz) factor to
me, where did you derive your "force factor," and may I see that
derivation? |
|
| 4. |
One such
experiment, almost 100 years old now, is the degree of bend force that
light feels as it passes the sun. Experiments showed that relativity did
predict the right degree of bend in the light path. How do you explain
that in Yun-Qi? |
|
| 5. |
On other
experiment is the life time of the Muon. Relativity predicts the lifetime
of a cosmic muon very exactly and experiments show that relativity makes
the correct prediction to a great degree of accuracy. Then how do you
explain that? |
|
| 6. |
Also, why do
you trust in F=ma so fundamentally that you only want to add a factor? |
|
|
7. |
How do you
explain the entire array of relativistic quantum mechanics experiments
which have been demonstrated on a level where F=ma is no longer valid? |
| 1. |
Relativity not only assumes c
is constant, it shows why it must be with the Lorenz factor you have
changed and called your force factor. In your ideas I don't see why c is
constant, how do you explain c being constant, or do you say it is not?
|
|
Either c is constant or not
constant, the formula F=(1-v^2/c^2)Fo is OK. Actually c is the local field
speed in this formula. About whether c is constant or not, I am sorry I
still do not go that far and so I can not give the details now. But in the
large scale, I am sure c is absolutely not a constant. It will vary with
the local field.
|
|
|
| 2. |
If you say that c is not
constant, then you have already been proven wrong by many experiments(e.g.
Michaelson and Morely) which have measured it. If say it is constant, why
is it in your ideas?
|
|
I didn't see that any experiment
is controversial with the non-constant c. To clearly see my words, we need
to figure out what's the vacuum at first. In Yun-Qi, there is no vacuum,
all the vacuum is made of fields. If no field, then no vacuum and exists
null. Today, people may think it will be dark if no fields, not true.
Second, the fields are sort of like the past concepts 'ether'. Third, why
we can not find this ether? --- because we always stay in it. I can use a
simple example to state that: the earth is self turning at a very high
speed, then what is the velocity of the air relative to us? zero! Ether
does same. The earth is moving at the speed of 30 km/s relative to the
sun, then what's the velocity of the air relative to us? zero! Ether does
same.
|
|
|
| 3. |
Your "force factor"
looks like a modified gamma (Lorenz) factor to me, where did you derive
your "force factor," and may I see that derivation?
|
|
I am sorry I can't give you the
details for those derivations now, since I still do not have time to go
that far. But the results of the force factor is absolutely correct. I can
try to show you in other way. From my first paper, we can get the Newton's
gravity force is actually: F=(v1*v2/c^2)(M1*M2/r^2) --- I didn't show it
in my paper. See the force factor will be the square of the velocity --- absolutely not the single velocity power. And the 1 is coming
from the normalization.
|
|
|
| 4. |
One such experiment, almost 100
years old now, is the degree of bend force that light feels as it passes
the sun. Experiments showed that relativity did predict the right degree
of bend in the light path. How do you explain that in Yun-Qi?
|
|
There is NO any conflict here. As
I said above, the field(ether) of earth will show us that picture. For
example, consider the air is full of the out space of the earth, then
image what the air "field" happens when earth is self turning.
It will automatically bending the air "field"!
The light's mass is zero in Yun-Qi. It is just a wave, or field wave.
|
|
|
| 5. |
On other experiment is the life
time of the Muon. Relativity predicts the lifetime of a cosmic muon very
exactly and experiments show that relativity makes the correct prediction
to a great degree of accuracy. Then how do you explain that?
|
|
There is also NO any conflict
here. Since all the forces are connecting with the moving speed of the
object, just like the gravity force I gave above. When the Muon is moving near the speed of light, its weak force will rise
up a lot. This stronger force will make that the Muon delays the decay
time. But I am sorry I don't have the detailed weak force factor at present time.
Some people asked me, how can I explain the time dilution for the
atomic clock bring to the aircraft or what ever. My answer is pretty
simple: Time is not the atomic clock, although we can use it to measure
time. Just like we can use the pendulum to measure time, but the
pendulum's motion is not time. If we put the pendulum in the air, it
will slow and then stop, but that doesn't mean that the time will be
shortened and stopped!
|
|
|
| 6. |
Also, why do you trust in F=ma
so fundamentally that you only want to add a factor?
|
|
The formula F=ma is always true,
since it can be derived from Yun-Qi. Actually not only f=ma, but most of
the classical mechanical laws are also always true. Please see my paper in
the later part, most of the mechanics laws are coming out automatically.
But the field force will vary with its moving speed.
|
|
|
| 7. |
How do you explain the entire
array of relativistic quantum mechanics experiments which have been
demonstrated on a level where F=ma is no longer valid?
|
|
I didn't see any problem in Yun-Qi
for those stuff. There also will be NO conflicts with those experiments.
Today we'll treat the particle's energy very very high when it is moving
near c. But in Yun-Qi, I can not see those ways. The kinetic energy of a particle moving near c is ONLY mc^2/2, not the INFINITY of today's.
The high energy physics is NOTHING but CHEATING.
|
|
|
|