Dear Julie and David

I would like to let you know that I have read your essay which I enjoyed very much and found it very interesting. I hope you have read my previous essay where I discuss about the principle of causality and the fundamental notions of space and time. As you notice in your essay, the principle sufficient reason may lead to an infinite regression if one does not set a minimum limit. In this respect I agree with your view. As I understood the introduction of the energeum is aim at trying to explain dark energy and the apparently violation to the energy conservation principle. My proposal assumes however that the vacuum is some sort of material fluid and this simple postulate suffices (as the theory of C. Christov shows, see below) to explain most physical phenomena without the need of introducing a new concept. In order to introduce you into my context, I shall mention the following:

Physicists have some problems that demand a solution. These problems are understood within the context of the prevailing theoretical framework (TF) which is founded on a certain number of assumptions. If one replaces the fundamental assumptions, one is replacing, partially or totally, the TF. When this occurs we have another TF in which the physical phenomena may acquire a completely different physical meaning. An example that comes to my mind is the explanation of gravity: first, a la Newton as a force and then, a la Einstein, as the curvature of space-time. So if I chose a radical TF, current problems may look radically different. After analyzing the history of the foundations of physics I found that there is one consideration that was pivotal in leading physics to its present state: the rejection of the luminiferous aether. Evidently by doing this, we are depriving any future theory of the conception that space is a material medium and that, for instance, an EM field or a particle (actually a soliton) is a state and manifestation of this medium. The notion of aether was replaced by geometry (Minkowski or Riemann space-time). So according to relativity, space is modeled as a geometrical vessel filled with ordinary matter and fields (gauge, EM, etc.). This view, although very productive in its time, has led physics to the present state: Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, horizon and flatness problems, CMBR, wave-particle duality, etc. All these issues are the result of modeling space as a manifold, as a totally empty background.

After several attempts to unify GR and QM many people wonder which of these theories is fundamentally incorrect. If we reconsider the assumption that space is a massive fluid with an internal structure (viscosity, elasticity, etc.), the medium for EM fields (that is, the opposite view to relativity) we have a radical and different TF in which the problems of the prevailing TF look completely different. In some cases (such as dark energy, dark matter, expansion of the universe) the problems do not even exist.

There is a well developed theory that I am supporting [C.I. Christov, Nonlinear Analysis 71 (2009) e2028e2044 and C. I. Christov, Math. Comput. Simul. 80 91101 (2009)] in alignment with the assumption that space is a material fluid (liquid or solid). This simple assumption suffices to explain most physical phenomena (IMO, this is the right theory). This theory is in need of further improvements and experimental verification. But, as I explained above, this view is radical and in opposition to the customary view. Despite this, I found it consistent and in agreement not only with the body of evidence but with intuition too. So, since I have found a consistent TF, for the future my task, as a physicists, is to show that this is the right approach.

The theory of a fluid space (actually is a four-dimensional space) has some drastic consequences. It implies, for instance, that there is no Big Bang, no expansion of the universe, no dark matter and no dark energy. From this TF these phenomena are fictitious.

Finally, I want to thank you for supporting my work and for your interest in continuing the discussion beyond this forum. I would be happy to discuss any topic you may be interested in. Surely, your work is worth of consideration and deserves a good score.

I wish you good luck in the contest!

Israel

    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.

    Sergey Fedosin

    Dear David and Julie,

    I have just re- read your essay. I think the idea of hierarchical systems is an important one that has perhaps been rather neglected in physics. A number of authors have been talking about the important role of information having control at a higher level of nature. I think the hierarchy of structures is also important as structure and function "go hand in hand".

    For explanatory purposes it may be best to look at higher levels of organisation operating together rather than just from the particle level. Scale is interesting because not only are there different sizes of system but systems within systems, within systems etc. and what is happening will depend on the scale that is examined. It is fascinating to imagine that scale dimension. Thinking that way isn't part of our everyday experience but a perspective that takes account of the interconnectedness of nature across scales is useful.

    Good luck in the contest. Kind regards, Georgina.

      Dear Israel,

      Thank you for reading our essay and the supportive comments. As you will have seen, there is a lot of overlap between our views. Although we came to it from a different perspective, we also think that space is material medium, and that gravity can be viewed as a density variation in this medium. Thank you for the nice explanation that you included in your post, and the links, which I will check out. Just one point of clarification, though -- we did not mean to imply that we introduced the idea of energeum in order to account for dark energy, but rather inferred the existence of energeum from PSR, energy conservation and the properties of the QV. We then suggested that if there is such a phenomenon as dark energy, then using energeum to account for it will preserve conservation of energy, giving some empirical support for our ontological postulate about energeum. If dark energy should turn out to be non-existent our philosophical argument for energeum will still be in the game.

      Will write to you again when I've had a chance to digest your other work a bit more,

      Thanks again, and good luck!

      Best wishes,

      David

      Hi, David

      Some thoughts on your responses:

      Q7/R7: I don't think that fractal theory can exhaust natural complexity. Fractals are algorithms; as such they can describe only pseudo-random sequences or patterns. The meaning of random is that it cannot be (i.e. has not been) captured in an algorithm. If nature is "truly" random, or indefinitely complex, then it may have levels of complexity, levels below (or above) those levels, etc--i.e. complexity that does not correspond to any formula. This goes to the heart of whether the world is truly commensurable with reason or not.

      R8: I would like to read your paper when it comes out. Please send.

      Q12/R12: I don't agree with Chalmers' assessment. I too have a paper under review, if you want to see it, that sets out my "solution" to the MBP.

      Thanks again,

      Dan

      David

      Thanks. I think you are the first person who shows signs of really 'getting the point'.

      Looking at my essay now, which is usually the case, it could be better expressed, so pleae feel free to seek clarification.

      Paul

      4 days later