• Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)

  • What Meaning To Give Percentages of 75% and 25%, Values Which Encounters When Studying the Components of the Universe: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Baryonic Matter and Radiation? Is This a Coincidence o

Welcome Yuri,

Thanks for the articles.

I spent the evening reading and rereading your two articles. There are obvious similarities at first glance. Surely there must be many people who noticed these reports, but without giving them afterwards.

I think your approach is innovative and insightful, although I think it is a bit different from mine.

What worries me are the phenomena InfoEnergetics all those related to thermodynamics, entropy, energy and information.

In my approach, the procedure is in an amount of energy that is transformed by using the laws of thermodynamics, which are closely related to the entropy, and gives two (2) entities in well-defined proportions: 25% for one of the most organized, and the other 75%, whichever is the least organized of the two. The process is repeated for all components in early Universe.

For me, it is an amount of energy that is transformed into branches, giving each two entities in proportions of 25% and 75% of the starting amount.

The principle of conservation of energy is guaranteed 100% ===> 25% 75%.

Thus I think that all components of the Universe were formed before the Universe becomes functional system and complete.

And for you, what phenomena do you think the source of this outstanding report?

Best regards,

Dear Ted,

Thank you for your comment.

I found your essay interesting. I would like to have more information about the process of creation of matter.

"The 3-fold electric-magnetic-gravitational wave of Newstead18 suggests,

when (IF) experimentally confirmed and properly tuned, the creation of matter

from nothing (a point) has a 0.0625 probability. This may be happening in nature occasionally, even now."

If what you say is proved, I have right to give this value :

matter radiation = 0.0625,

or matter only : 0.04687

I would like to have more info about it.

Thanks for helping me.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #6

Does God play Dice?

Yes,but when He play, always falls the same 3:1

    I like your expression.

    If He always falls on 1:3 it is not any more a dice game, it is a Nature Law.

    Thank you

    • [deleted]

    • Post #8

    Lot of compliments....

    Are you rate my essay?

    I am not here so long, and i take a time to show all others works to be objective, and you are in my mind to do so.

    And my english is not very good.

    Be without fear

    • [deleted]

    • Post #10

    You too....

    Dear Mr. Hannou,

    you are right, the existence of the two values is no coincidence. There is even a law behind it. Look f.e. at the half-life of an unstable radioactive atom. It follows to a very high degree your distribution scale of energy.

    May be this information is of interest for you.

    I wish you good luck.

    Helmut

      Dear Amazigh

      You can evaluate some others points of view to the problems: of dark matter in the article: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13; and about of the levels of matter in the article Similarity of matter levels. See also Discreteness of stellar parameters about the correspondence between the atoms and the stars.

      Sergey Fedosin

        • [deleted]

        • Post #14

        Despite nasty knowledge of English, I after all will try to answer your question.

        I will begin with that my opinion on a structure of the Universe is based on logic of things prime and available to comprehension. I don't try to invent any new aspects of a universe. I am guided in the reflections by classical laws of physics, but I find in them some defects. Certainly, these defects have the logic explanation. I believe that everything to banality primely when an I.newton wrote the treatise about the physical world, it had no possibility to lean on experience which the modern science has. In communication with what it put forward not absolutely valid paradigm, namely that «the weight forms gravitation». I come to a conclusion that gravitation and is space in the primordial form.

        And light - an electromagnetic wave of exaltation of this space.

        As a result of indignation of this space there is an effect of a cavitation therefore the space is bent that locally increases effect of a gravitational field forming certain "brick" of a universe. That, is, simple atom of Hydrogenium where there is 1 proton, 1 neutron, 1 electron.

        The proton and neutron form the charged core, and an electron negatively the charged part addressing in a circle of a core is positive, but the curvature of a gravitational field forces to rotate an atom core in a trace behind rotation of a core the electron rotates also. N the Bohr described effect of a diffraction of light, thus it became clear that the part of a light wave is absorbed by atom, it conducts to atom exaltation, that, there is a transition of the electronic shell of atom to higher orbit. The gravitational field of atom draws the electronic shell to an atom core, this effect is accompanied by selection of an electromagnetic wave of mainly infra-red range. This process in physics is called as "entropy", thus, the matter at existence of a light wave is constantly in «the relative exaltation». The vozbuzhdennost degree is higher, the counting rate of atom is higher. But if the atom of a matter for any reasons doesn't receive exaltations, eventually an electron interferes with with an atom core in this case and there is a substance annihilation.

        From here the conclusion that what anti-matter or dark energy can't exist. On it it is not possible to detect this matter practically.

        Yours faithfully,

        S. Starostin

        Dear Sergey Aleks Starostin,

        Me either, I do not redo the laws of physics, I work with and I trust them. Unless I have serious reasons to worry about it.

        So far I can find no evidence to doubt the energy and dark matter. They impose on us, although we do not know exactly what they are doing.

        In my model of distribution of energy in the universe, I rely on a fundamental theoretical result, which I have not yet revealed the nature.

        The ratios of energy, 25% and 75% have a thermodynamic basis seriously. And the universe masterfully comply with physical laws. For me this is an additional argument to support the idea of energy and dark matter.

        All the best for you.

        Dear Helmut,

        I thought about this phenomenon of radioactivity, in particularly the half-life.

        This can not be compared to the proportion of 25% -75%, of which I raised the question in my essay.

        It is true, we can see everywhere, values, constants, ratios, and it is normal that some of them are repeated, either by pure coincidence, because they are phenomena of a different nature, or because they emanate from a same law.

        Here, I do not see how it could be.

        Thank you for your comment and suggestion.

        All the best for you.

        Dear Amazigh,

        I just read your essay. You point out some examples of a 3:1 ratio (or close approximation) in physics that I was not aware of. In my opinion, the most important example of a 3:1 ratio is the dimensionality of "spacetime;" 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. It seems reasonable to at least think about trying to relate this very fundamental ratio to the others. Take care,

        Ben Dribus

        17 days later

        After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

        Cood luck.

        Sergey Fedosin

        • [deleted]

        • Post #19

        Сher Ami

        N'oubliez pas s'il vous plaît évaluer de manière impartiale mon essai

          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

            • [deleted]

            • Post #21

            Conclusion :

            I believe that science does not work according to the number of points which we receive, or from our popularity to convince others to vote for us.

            Of course, to win the contest, this could play a role, but not to influence the scientific veracity.

            I also believe that the promoters of this contest are conscious of the limits of this form of notation, and they provided a mean to remedy for this.

            It would not be desirable for them to highlight a work which is going to turn out in pure opinon, and to drop the other which may to convey a real foundation.

            But as we can not change the rules, We must rely on our good star, and their good judgment.

            In my soul and conscience, I gave a sincere notes to the works which I was able to read and understand, and which I find that they convey ideas close to my approach to the foundations of nature.

            When I found this contest on the Internet, there were no more than five days to apply. During this time, I had to write the article, my first in my life, and especially to translate it into English on time.

            I arrived there in disaster.

            Some have criticized the quality of writing of the article, and I agree with them. I'm working on a remodeled, widened and improved article.

            And those who are interested in this way of research have only to contact me.

            And good luck to all...

            (It's Me and not Anonymous)

            Conclusion :

            I believe that science does not work according to the number of points which we receive, or from our popularity to convince others to vote for us.

            Of course, to win the contest, this could play a role, but not to influence the scientific veracity.

            I also believe that the promoters of this contest are conscious of the limits of this form of notation, and they provided a mean to remedy for this.

            It would not be desirable for them to highlight a work which is going to turn out in pure opinon, and to drop the other which may to convey a real foundation.

            But as we can not change the rules, We must rely on our good star, and their good judgment.

            In my soul and conscience, I gave a sincere notes to the works which I was able to read and understand, and which I find that they convey ideas close to my approach to the foundations of nature.

            When I found this contest on the Internet, there were no more than five days to apply. During this time, I had to write the article, my first in my life, and especially to translate it into English on time.

            I arrived there in disaster.

            Some have criticized the quality of writing of the article, and I agree with them. I'm working on a remodeled, widened and improved article.

            And those who are interested in this way of research have only to contact me.

            And good luck to all...

            Dear Sergey,

            Thank you for the clarification.

            See my conclusion here after.

            Good luck !