[deleted]
Dear Jim,
Thanks again for this interesting discussion.
I am going to read your full comment on general relativity, Newtonian theory and misapplication of methods of approximation by astronomers in your Essay page.
Cheers,
Ch.
Dear Jim,
Thanks again for this interesting discussion.
I am going to read your full comment on general relativity, Newtonian theory and misapplication of methods of approximation by astronomers in your Essay page.
Cheers,
Ch.
Dear Wilhelmus,
Thanks for your kind words on Darryl Leiter. He was a great person and a great scientist and I agree with you that he would be truly content to see the essay we wrote together.
I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Ch.
Dear Chris,
Again I have a more complete reply on my essay's blog, but I'm not a physicist & can't do math - please consider:
James Q. Feng and C. F. Gallo. "Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies." Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11 (December 2011): 1429. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/11/12/005. arXiv:1104.3236v4.
Joanna Jalocha et al. "Is dark matter present in NGC4736? An iterative spectral method for finding mass distribution in spiral galaxies." Astrophysical Journal 679 (May 20 2008): 373-378. doi:10.1086/533511. arXiv:astro-ph/0611113v3.
Sincerely, Jim
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
:) interesting algorythm. I ask me if several variables are inserted in a pure deterministic way ?
In fact, it depends of what we want to analyze after all.It is the reason why the domains become essential, it is the same for the limits of calculations.
Regards
Dear Sergei,
Thanks for the clarification.
Cheers,
Ch.
Thanks Jim, I am going to read the papers that you cite.
Cheers,
Ch.
Dear Christian:
Did you get a chance to read my paper --" From Absurd to Elegant Universe" and provide any comments?
Thanks
Avtar Singh
Dear Dr. Corda, and colleagues,
My condolences for Dr. Leiter, whom I admire from previous fqxi essay contests. Your essay is very compelling, and one should not exclude the possibility that singularities and horizons don't actually exist. I think you are doing an important job by exploring this possibility. Being more intimidated by theorems of Penrose, Hawking, Christodoulou, and Klainerman, I took the complementary task to consider the singularities as inevitable, and see what happens. In my essay "Did God divide by zero?" I show that nothing that bad as expected, that black hole and big bang singularities not only are benign, but even introduce a metric dimensional reduction which may help at the quantization of gravity. So if the singularities will turn out to exist, I hope to provide a safety net with my approach. I would appreciate feedback to my essay, if you find time for this.
On the other hand, you may very well be right and nothing like singularities is admitted in reality. It may be possible that the strong equivalence principle be ensured by global consistency. I use global consistency in "Global and local aspects of causality" (independent of this contest's essay), to make quantum mechanics more reasonable and more compatible with general relativity.
Best wishes,
Dear Avtar,
I have just read,commented and rated your interesting Essay.
Cheers,
Ch.
Hi Cristi,
Thanks for condolances for Darryl. He was an excellent person and a great scientist.
I saw that you are, like us, one of the victims of the strange "rasing and dropping" of the Community Rating.
Concerning physics, I think that the theorems of Penrose, Hawking, Christodoulou, and Klainerman are a fantastic mathematical result, but not sacred cows. Physics of compact objects could be different.
OK, I am going to read your Essay and I will put my comments in your page.
Cheers,
Ch.
I rate yours 10.
Thanks my dear Jin.
I am going to read and rate your Essay too.
Cheers,
Ch.
Dear Christian Corda,
Thanks for your rating. But that does not work. The scientific academia is controlled by the powerful celebrity in the same way the Western financial system is controlled by those powerful celebrity.
Thanks anyway.
Jin He
Dark Energy is the great mystery in the universe today.Scientists only have some ideas about dark energy but today 73 percent is something even more mysterious, which they call dark energy.
Try the CIG Theory approach to resolve the great mystery of Dark Energy.
www.CIGTheory.com
doug
Does this coroborate in any way CIG Theory, wherein traveling Mass turns to Space?
CIG offered a very crude countercheck of the validity CUPI quantification, came up with about the size of the Universe. It is also deterministic.
Is CIG Theory correct? www.CIGTheory..com
THX
doug