On Whether or Not Non-Gravitational Interaction Can Occur in the Absence of Gravity by Shawn Halayka

Dear Shawn,

I am sure Big Bang is not necessary to explain the cosmology. There are many other explanations of red shifts of remote galaxies, Microwave Background and other effects. I prefer other idea that not only stars and galaxies are collapsed with the time but the Metagalaxy itself is collapsing as a whole. See the book: Fedosin S.G. Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik. Perm, 1999, 544 pages. ISBN 5-8131-0012-1.

Sergey Fedosin

Hi Sergey,

Thanks for the extra information.

- Shawn

Did you read Matt Wisser article about sakharov elasticity of space?

奥献

Shawn

What do you think about variation gravitation constant?

my opinion here

Appendix 1 Cosmological picture of one cycle

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

Hi Yuri,

Why do these numbers change? Is e the base of the natural logarithm? How are electromagnetism and gravitation related (ie. is gravity emergent)?

- Shawn

Hi Shawn. I tried to understand your essay on annotations and comments. Official physics, you can interact without gravity to justify the Higgs particle. Your thought is correct: any interaction can occur only under conditions of gravity. At my metaphysical theory, all forms of energy and matter come from heat and information. Heats and information (structure) gravity does not. Gravity is going to heat and the real world. (This excludes Big Bang.) The real world has a mass and gravity. According to this, any interactions can take place only under the force of gravity of matter and gravity of the universe.

Copy and paste from Google Translate did not work good. :)

Induced Gravity in Superfluid 3He

http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9806010

Grigori very smart person

That's very cool Yuri. I've also heard about acoustic black holes / acoustic Hawking radiatiom.

- Shawn

Shawn,

Though you had no way of knowing it up front, you were destined to lose that one. Your views of information are simply different. Consider the exchange:

"I view meaningful information obtained from a physical message as a physical reality that leads to (possible) physical outcomes. [...] by contrast, the "info content" and the "data content" don't seem to lead to physical outcomes."

Unless one is claiming that particles attach "meaning" to information, then one is bringing consciousness into the picture, without of course, defining consciousness. Conscious interpretations provide the 'meaning' for information extracted from data, as I have argued in earlier comments. [I ignore here automated decoding-and-action systems that, in the end, trace to consciousness.]

The bottom line: "...information is physical..." As you noted, a lot of physicists seem to believe this. We can argue until we're blue in the face. I think it's a semi-religious thing based on naive materialism.

The problem: "...subjective experience is the entirely natural way that information is apprehended in the universe. Subjective experience is meaningful information."

Although we all have it, I don't believe 'subjective experience' was defined in that series of exchanges, so how can you argue with "information = undefined thing"? If someone cares to redefine information as "subjective experience" rather than use Claude Shannon's definition, there's no point in arguing. You can't win this one.

But I did find your arguments interesting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

I'm not debating the fact that information (entropy) is physical.

What's the information content of a single state? S = ln(1) = 0.

What's the information content of a single particle (think pre-relativistic quantum field theory)? S = ln(1) = 0.

What's the data content for either? Not zero.

No one debates this because it's obviously true. As for anyone who fails to recognize the difference between dsta and information content, they surely do not recognize that Shannon's entire theory relies on more than one distinct state (symbol) to produce information. This isn't some limitation of the log function -- it's how it really is. Information can only emerge from multiple, non-repetitive symbols.

Perhaps if you wish to swap "information content" with "ideal information content" and swap "data content" with "manifest information content", I can see your point of view, but in that world there is no room for the word data. I doubt that the people who study data compression would be obliging. They didn't call it "information compression" for good reason.

- Shawn

- Shawn

And for what it's worth, I'm being quite polite. The debate was about dishonesty (not my word), and I'm simply pointing out the dishonesty of those biologists and physicists who clearly did not thoroughly study pseudo-random number generation, graph theory, source coding (data compression, etc. I really have nothing against the people that I am debating with -- I gave them both quite high scores on their essays.

"pre-relativistic quantum field theory"

should have been

"pre-'relativistic quantum field theory'"