• [deleted]

  • Post #22

Hai.Caohoang:

Re: "Absolute".

My understanding of the adjective "absolute" is as a declaration by mankind that something is 'absolutely evil', or 'absolute zero', or an 'absolute lie', etc., etc.

In that in Cosmology we are studying the Cosmos as "Objective Reality", does this not rule out the 'Subjective', i.e., mankind's input? If man were not around the Universe would continue to 'do its thing' forever.

There is only one absolute and that is the axiomatic concept of "Existence", and its corallaries of "Conciousness" and "Identity", as identified in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "Existence Exists.", and cannot be refuted without using existence in the process of attempting to refute.

All else is hypothesis based on evidence that seems to be true. Or else based on magic.

Hello James,

I think you have looked at this question with an open mind and the result is very original.

Your conclusion that there is no need for Black Holes sits well with other essays in the contest. The conclusions in my essay seem to allow singularities to be skipped over, from an information viewpoint while still capturing the characteristics of Black Holes. I wonder if our two ideas are compatible?

Kind regards,

Antony

Antony:

Thanks for your Post, and comments.

I have read your Essay and most of the others and find them all to be beyond my ken, mathematically, so I cannot comment on, nor rate, them with any degree of comprehension. So I don't. In that all are discussing the same Universe, most should have some degree of compatability because all are interpretations from the same evidence (from our astronomers).

But we each seem to interpret this information differently, most not looking at the whole picture initially, except for many accepting the idea of a Big Bang as a foregone conclusion, not open to rebuttal.

My goal, however, is to try to see what the what the "whole" is (or might be), and then to proceed to interpret the evidence with that "whole" in mind. This I did by a brief excursion into philosophy (in the first page of the essay, and in my Post to Hai, just above).

If we start from the Universe as infinite and eternal, and subject to perpetual 100% renewal of its galaxies, etc., we will have automatically exclused all that is incompatable with such a Universe, including a Big Bang, or Black Holes, and anything else that is not reasonable, with "---reason being (the) only absolute.", to quote Ayn Rand.

In my essay, I start with the Galaxy Cluster, which includes not only galaxies but also the Dark Mass, a medium responsive to gravity, and analyze what happen to these ingredients under the continual force of gravity feeding them into the central Seyfert galaxy over billions of years. From this come the quasars, and then new galaxies and more Dark Mass, both of which are fed more Galaxy Clusters. From the continual compression of the Dark Mass comes the Gravitational Lenes, and the effect seen as the Cosmological Redshift.

My major disappointment is not having been able to describe what happens within the Seyfert galaxy that transforms the ingredients into Quasars and ejects them at a high velocity. I believe that all else that I've presented to be perfectly plausibe, but am open to argument.

Jim Wright

Hi James,

That's the beauty of the contest - looking at the Universe in different ways and sharing ideas.

Hope you're enjoying the essays as much as me.

All the best,

Antony

James,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

20 days later

To All.

In my essay, Pg. 1, I advance a philosophical argument to which I want to add a new thought. If Existence is infinite and eternal and engaged in a renewal process that uses old mass to get new mass it should have stabilized, and eternity ago, so that it would have an overall density that, on average, did not change. Such a Universe would automatically preclude the notions of "Expansion", or "Inflation", or whatever.

Jim Wright

To All.

In my essay, Pg. 3 and under Halton Arp, I present the argument that mass, falling into the Seyfert galaxies, is "transformed" into new galaxies, but don't dig more deeply into this transformation phase. Observe that the Seyfert galaxies all have Active Galactic Nuclei. Observe, also, that the Seyferts at the center of a Galaxy Cluster is many times more massive than the average Seyfert, and so it should not be unexpected that it would behave differently.

As the Galaxy Cluster adds more mass it is the very center of the nucleus of the Seyfert that reaches a critical mass first and that nuclear ignition is initiated. The added pressure of the fireball causes it to expand (within the nucleus) until its surface pressure no longer reaches the needed critical mass and no more ignition occurs.

Observe that this entire explosion occurs within the nucleus itself and, so, causes the internal pressures to grow far beyond the critical mass. It is within this super-dense fireball that the various elements and other masses are transformation into the simple elements found in the new galaxies that are formed from the Quasars.

How these Quasars, with the mass of entire galaxies, are ejected from the Seyfert is thought to be electro-magnetic, with the Quasars traveling out through the magnetic poles of the Seyfert.

Jim Wright

Dear James,

I read your essay with great interest, It is written in the spirit of Rene Descartes: "loud and clear" very good language with illustrations. World contests FQXi - it contests new fundamental ideas, new deep meanings and new concepts. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions:

«Always, when given ideas as gospel, things that make no sense in a Universe of

objective reality, I look for alternatives reasons for what is being proposed. »...« Finally, if Existence exists here now after an eternity of burning, there must be some echanism at work that results in a 100% efficient regeneration of all the existents in existence. Confirming such an Existence became the goal for my cosmological explorations.»

And your main conclusion is very radical. That's radical ideas are needed now physics and cosmology: «Is it not logical to conclude that this ocean of GC's, each with its own renewal engines at work, fills the OU, and on to infinity? No need for BH's! »Great!"

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.» Http://www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

And I have for you a second question: How should the physics go to physical picture of the world was as rich in meaning as the picture of the world lyricists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Although 5 - my favorite number (my birthday and my daughter), I put the rating of your essay "happy nine". Please look at my essay and fair vote.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Vladimir:

In entering the FQXi contest my hope was not primarily to win $10,000, but more in the hopes of getting hundreds if astronomer/physicists, and astronomer/philosophers, to read the paper and to respond with arguments as to why what I have developed is wrong, or right. I do appreciate your comments as the most understanding of the few that have responded.

When I started putting my cosmological ideas together (some years ago) I realized the importance of philosophy in science. Not only important, but fundamental! I had previously discovered Ayn Rand's philosophy (many more years ago), and knew of a book by Leonard Peikoff explaining in great detail the whole of Rand's philosophy.

In the belief that this philosophy of Objectivism will fascinate you as it did me I've copied its Table of Contents below. "Existence" is presented as an axiomatic concept which cannot be refuted, and which must be fully apprehended. And it is important to accept the "Primacy of Existence over Consciousness" as an axiom. From this all else is causally connected, in philosophy or in science, including epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

My whole Cosmological Model was first developed philosophically and only then was the evidence from the astronomers used to support such a model physically. In my opinion, of course, it did. And this is my challenge.

Jim WrightAttachment #1: Objectivism_Table_of_Contents__1679x11421.png

Hello Jim,

Yes, I fully agree with you. It is a deep philosophical approach to my attention in your essay. I looked at your link, thank you very much! I have to try to look for can have in russian ...

Once again, I am convinced, and I agree with you that FQXi contest are of great importance for the promotion of ideas. Thank FQXi! It is good that here you find new friends and associates.

I'm waiting for you on my forum.

Good luck in the contest!

With best regards,

Vladimir

Vladimir:

I found a lot of Ayn Rand's novels and essays in Russian but not Peikoff's book on her Philosophy. You may find something through The Ayn Rand Institute. In any event, I urge you to read it in English if you have to. It is most important.

You may be pleased to know that Ayn Rand was born in Russia and only after graduating from a University there did she migrate to the U.S.

I am totally engrossed in another book called "Free Market Revolution", by Yaron Brook, which points out that we (in the US, particularly) are fast approaching a meltdown (a great depression) unless we revolt against Government regulations. This is predicted in Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged", which is available in Russian.

Yaron Brook claims to provide a solution, which I'm desperately hoping he does and that we follow through, whatever it entails. I'm currently just starting Part II, which he has entitled "The Solution". We'll see.

I am not ignoring your Essay and have read a bit of it, but suspect that I'll have to tell you what I told another writer, of 7/1, that I may not really comprehend the math and science in the Essay so would be unable to discuss it intelligently, nor to rate it honestly.

Wishing you well.

Jim Wright

James,

I've printed off your interesting sounding essay and look forward to reading of your explorations.

Apparently my own abstract may be a bit dense and off putting, but not indicative, so I hope you may tempt you to read and score it by including a few of the better comments from other authors so far;

"I accept unequivocally your solution to the unique/identical problem."

"you have made a valuable contribution... It is a pleasure to read."

"As always, you're impressive!"

"This seems to be one of the more interesting approaches I've read ... ...That's testament to your great writing ability - I think you've done a fantastic job."

"Your essay has clarified the whole issue of no-go theorems".

"Peter and others interested in his wonderful essay,..."

"I think your work is clearly significant, and will resolve certain apparently 'metaphysical' aspects of reality to the 'physical' Cosmos."

"I am deeply impressed with your depth of knowledge. I am also struck the depth of your thinking, your graphics, and your willingness to 'put yourself on the line' intellectually."

"Your essay is attractive and I read it with much interest."

"we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it."

"Technically challenging and philosophically deep - very few papers meet both. This is one of them."

"I hope this astonishing paper finds many many readers, especially among theoretical physicists: It is groundbreaking."

Now extended for the very last week ..book now! Very best wishes.

Peter

    Jim,

    Glad I read your paper. It's very much in my area and I found it original, well organised and easy to read. Perhaps a few of your assumptions needed more researching, but with such a broad area and strict limit it's more important to get the propositions across, which you did well.

    We certainly share a strong realist view, in fact maybe me more than you as I use an empirical approach to build a coherent if radical ontology to get a particular spectacular proof, but I agree many of your fundamentals including;

    A background medium (my last 2 essays show how this need not be 'absolute' so suffer the theoretical problems assumed.)

    Quasar evolution into galaxies as Arps' suggestion (though fully developed to a recycling model and evolutionary sequence- but two radical for MS so far! (outline paper avail if you're interested- see prev essays). ..and..;

    Redshift/Accelerating Expansion. Frankly one of the greatest failures of intellectual application in astronomy, and related to the above.(The above model agrees limited and peculiar expansion matching the CMB anisotropies).

    I do hope you can also read and score mine. With your experiance you may be interested that it was built from a model explaining why Maxwell's near/far field transition zone is different for all wavelengths (paper available on arXiv).

    Well done for yours, and best of luck.

    Peter

    Peter:

    I found four earlier papers of yours and went through them, more thoroughly in the first one, but to an extent in the other three. My approach is totally different than the other papers in these contests in that it begins philosophically.

    1. Ayn Rand has identified 'Existence' as an axiomatic concept, a concept that cannot be refuted. It is self evident. Furthermore, she notes that Existence has primacy over Consciousness, which rules out the possibility of Creation. Hers is a philosophy of Objective Reality.

    2. Following this she also presents it as 'Existence Exists'. I extend this to state that if existence exists here, in the Observable Universe, and in that one cannot juxtapose existence with non-existence, neither in space nor in time, it must extend outward to infinity and be eternal.

    3. Observing this, and that we have an infinite ocean of galaxies of stars, all burning steadily, then this 'Existence' must have a mechanism of self-renewal of all the burned up mass, at an efficiency of 100%.

    4. This, then, gives us a Philosophical Cosmological Model (PCM) of an Infinite and Eternal Universe, one that is not just hypothetical but one that has been proven to be true, and one that must be reckoned with.

    Once accepted, one may start to deal with the evidence provided by our astronomers and their telescopes. My point of takeoff was the Galaxy Clusters (GC) and their characteristics, which include not just galaxies but also Dark Mass (DM), all being gravitationally being drawn in to a central spiral galaxy, usually a Seyfert. From this (the PCM, and the GC, and other evidence) I was able to fit the pieces of the puzzle together and get a compatible and fully comprehensible Cosmological Model. This Model:

    5. Provides for the Cosmological Redshift (CRS).

    6. Provides a mechanism for galactic renewal.

    7. Provides for a Gravitational Lens (GL).

    8. Provides, because of the changing density (dielectric) of the GL, for the speed of light to be below, or above, that measured in the Milky Way, depending on whether we are looking toward the center of the GC, (of which we are a part) or away from it.

    9. Show how a light path, from source to observer, varies as it passes through adjacent GL's. (See Attachment)

    10. Allows for an infinite ocean of GC's, all "doing their thing".

    11. Etc., etc., etc. Study my paper.

    Most of the other essay authors, listening to speeches, or reading the gibberish in the books and papers, tried to make sense of the contradictions. Impossible, especially if they were unable to cast off the shackles placed on them by their professors.

    Jim Wright

    Hello Jim from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder ! 'Foundational', 'interesting', 'original & creative', technically correct & rigourously argued', 'well & clearly written', 'accessible'. Your essay ticked all the boxes for me. Not only do I agree with many of your main points (quasars bring matter into our universe) but you reference some 'not-very-well-known' authors - Ayn Rand - & astronomers -Halton Arp - who's work I too find convincing.

    I'm a big fan of 'The Electric Universe' at Thunderbolts.org I wonder if you've heard of them - I think they would be very interested in your work. Halton Arp is one of their 'patron saints' - I jest !!! as is also Kristian Birkeland. The folks at Thunderbolts suggest that our universe is a plasma universe & that what mainstreamers call dark energy/dark matter is plasma .. ..

    My own essay is focused pretty much exclusively on 'information' & I am so bold as to claim that I have discovered information's exact ontology - hope you enjoy it !!!

    Regards - Margriet.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #39

      Margriet, from Down Under:

      Have you read my post to Peter, just above yours to me? It summarizes my thoughts. A proper philosophy must underlie all knowledge, and for this reason I began my paper with one, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

      Halton Arp, Ayn Rand, and Vera Rubin were just a few of the thinkers that were ostracized by the Establishment. That was true of Galileo. (Perhaps that is why their teachings attract me.)

      I'm delighted that you chose to think and question the statuesque. It certainly needs it.

      I'll be studying your paper more thoroughly soon but want to remind you that "Existence has primacy over Consciousness".

      Jim

      Dear James,

      We are at the end of this essay contest.

      In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

      Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

      eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

      And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

      Good luck to the winners,

      And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

      Amazigh H.

      I rated your essay.

      Please visit My essay.

      Dear James Burton Wright:

      I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

      I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

      I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

      Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

      I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

      With my best whishes

      Héctor