Hello Peter,

I have browsed your viXra paper. Will be reading it in more detail later because there is much to learn from it. For example I had proposed testing SR by LLR in 2009 (see here) and I am gratified that one such experiment has been done which I came across in your references. I have also explored (here)whether dark matter could be the earth bound luminiferous medium. I will be comparing this with your Discrete Spaces.

Many thanks indeed,

Akinbo

*I just wonder why experiments contradicting LLI are covered up. But it's all a matter of time.

Peter,

Hi. I totally agree with you on the need to recognize the difference between physical reality and abstract, in-the-mind reality. And that the rules that apply in the abstract world may not apply in the outside-the-mind world seems blinding obvious, but apparently it isn't to many physicists and mathematicians. It's very good of your essay to point this out and remind people of it. One of the examples that bugs me is that just because an equation has a variable t, for time in it, and in one's mind, one can put in a negative t and the equation still works, this doesn't mean that time can go backwards in the outside-the-mind world.

In regards to A being similar to A instead of identical, I also agree. One can have two instances of the A class of objects, but the two As are separate existent states in separate locations. This may sometimes also apply in the abstract, inside-the-mind domain. For example, one might think another rule would be that A does not equal -A. But, as an example of why this may not be true, one of my views is that the words "something" and "nothing" are just two different ways of describing the same underlying thing, an existent state. We've always distinguished the words "something" and "nothing" as having opposite meanings, like A and -A, but I think that's because we've always been misdefining the word "nothing". If we could think of the situation we previously defined as "nothing" slightly differently, we'd see that it's actually "something". So, even in the abstract domain, A doesn't always equal A, and A may sometimes equal -A. It all depends on the observer's perspective of what A and -A look like to him or her.

The toroid stuff was above my level of knowledge, so I won't comment on that part. But, one interesting coincidence is that helices are very common in biochemistry, too, like in the DNA double helix and in the alpha helix structure of some proteins. We're surrounded by toruses and helices!

Anyways, great essay! I think many of us seem to be hitting on the same idea about the need to dethrone mathematics and re-install the outside-the-mind, physical world as the king of the universe!

Roger

Akinbo,

Thanks for your praise. It was also great pleasure to look over your 2009 papers. We agree on much, and I have a lot more consistent work which will help. I've also had deep discussions with Dan Gezari on Laser Ranging. I have a consistent resolution of the remaining anomalies but Dan "can't" adopt it.

You ask why the 'cover up' of findings inconsistent with SR. It's been going on for many decades. I had a piece published on the 'subjugation of skepticism in science', which you'll find here; Skeptical Intelligencer Article

The day of reckoning will certainly come for for the guilty. They're responsible for the appalling slow progress in science. Einstein would turn in his grave!

Look at the Rich Kingsley Nixey essay last year which agrees my ''bow shock' analysis and gives the picture of the speed and wavelength change across the shock from 'Cluster' probe data. It's wrongly interpreted at present with utter confusion, as admitted. Some more comprehensive descriptions of the Discrete Field Model are in my 2010 and 2011 essays, and here;

Optics, Interferometry etc. paper, Had. Jnl. 2012

Wiki DFM bin page. DFM Outline (to be updated/completed

Underlying Lorentz Transformation Mechanism

Finally the other little nugget you were after;

Twin Planetary Inertial Reference Frames; an Orbiting ECI frame and Inner Rotating ECRF

That's just a start, but I don't want to swamp you! Do please criticise and falsify wherever you can. You'll note some are collaborations, which I'm always happy to do. It seems we may be able to do so in a good number of areas if you're interested.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

Your critique of Aristotelian Logic is right on. Something that has been in the back of my mind for some months now.

Your evaluation of paradox is also quite good; as I'm a believer that even science is not exempt from the saying: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

Like you, I found myself finding many synchronicities between our work; and its always interesting to see how dialectics can mystify the fact that we're pretty much talking about the same things. Very enlightening. One simple question for you pertaining to this:

"An intelligent IQbit with new helical/toroidal freedoms is found hidden in a Sample Space of hierarchical subsets, and an Included Middle between binary 0 and 1"

Basically what we have here is a type of 'fractal-information'?

    Uncle Peter

    Very happy to see Uncle.

    Uncle still like that, there is an essay with analyzing diversity and scale, as well as number of theory was always very much integrated.

    At this time, the appeal be to the title "The Intelligent bit" and 6 axioms, it looks like Uncle very seriously with the causal relationships - me too.

    I am always appreciated the fussy, meticulous work and scale that Uncle mentioned.

    Wish Uncle stay healthy, joyful and successful with his own passion.

    Of course, always going to be a high score for Uncle.

    John,

    Thanks. I'm really pleased, and impressed, that you managed to extract so much of the information so tightly packed in the ontology.

    I love the term 'fractal information', It's spot on. I've also used the fractal analogy for the hierarchical inertial system 'discrete field' model underlying the propositions. If you get time I'd welcome your view on that (I need help!)

    Do let me know if you can put the EPR (Bell's) proof together. Check out Gordon Watson's essay for the mathematical proof.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Michel,

    Yes, mathematically, if the intervals are important and infinities are not. However I am proposing that the universe is primarily physical, and that mathematics can only easily provide a 'good approximation' (but also sometimes a mistaken one).

    I agree the concept does not exactly 'rely' on QM, certainly no current interpretation anyway, but it does allow a coherent interpretation consistent with classical theory and Local Reality. I suggest that in itself has much value.

    Do you not agree? Thanks anyway for reading it and your comments.

    VIDEO OF THE COSMIC FLOWS

    This important work shouldn't go unnoticed. We've known for decades that galaxies and other inertial systems have very different inertial states ('peculiar motions') of many tens of thousands of km/sec^-1. Here's the larger picture of the discrete local field motion (as DFM prediction but apparently less consistent with the Concordance model than even the problematic Planck findings); Two articles, direct video link, and link to the paper;

    Cartography of the Local Cosmos Helene M. Courtois, Daniel Pomarede, R. Brent Tully, Yehuda Hoffman, Denis Courtois First Author's Institution: University of Lyon, France. 'Astrobites' article.

    Simulation video

    Scitech article

    Paper; Cortois, H.M. et al. Cosmography of the Local Universe., Accepted AJ. 2013. AJ Paper free link.

    Alongside this a new finding that the gas and plasma content in and around the Milky Way in it's rotating rest frame is THREE TIMES higher than estimates, also as predicted by the DFM.; the He plasma fraction, not directly visible, (so 'dark' matter) is now detectable via it's CO link. Pineda, J. L., et al., "A Herschel [C II] Galactic plane survey I: the global distribution of ISM gas components", 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 554, A103. ESA Release.

    "The age of discovery may yet one day force us to improve our understanding"

    Enjoy.

    Peter

    Hi Peter,

    Our views are similar and only need some fine-tuning here and there. Let me digress a little to some issues bothering me...

    1. By what means are the 'plasmaspheres' bound to and dragged by the Earth, Sun, etc. Is it electromagnetic, gravitational or both? Going by the rotational velocities of outlying stars in our galaxy, our solar system appears to be in the middle of the galactic plasmashere. Can our earth then be exempted from interacting with this plasmashere?

    2. RE: Pioneer anomalous acceleration, can it also be explained by light travelling faster in far off plasmaspheres than that earth bound? See equation 1 in arXiv:gr-qc/0104064v5. The assumption is that c in earth-bound 'plasmasphere' will be same in far off plasmasphere. Plasmashere is your favorite term, but I prefer 'dark matter' for now.

    3. RE: Clausius equation, dE = TdS or dS = dE/T,

    which shows by how much entropy, S will change when an amount of energy,E is added to a system at a given temperature. You mentioned somewhere in one of your papers that absolute zero temperature is impossible, supposing in a special circumstance it is, what will be the significance for above equation?

    I have not finished reading all the material sent but I will in due course. I have read the Skeptical Intelligencer article. It is similar to the one I sent you (95 years of relativity)

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    Hi Peter,

    Excellent analogies and comparisons to substantiate your position that, "Quantum distributions are causally derived to a higher order, yet uncertainty never vanishes."

    Although my findings also show that uncertainty never vanishes, it is not due to a new "Law of the Reducing Middle". It is due to 'how' we get uncertainty in the first place. I hope you take the time to review my essay which addresses questions you ask of me in the past. If you do, you will find how we get spin in the first place which then leads to how gravity unifies the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces - ToE.

    Manuel,

    Thanks for your kind comments. I'm not sure I proposed anything as 'due to' the proposed Law, just that it describes nature correctly. Do you not agree that? If not why and where? I'm away on hol, but have your essay with me and have read most of it.

    I agree with most as you know, and as an essay find it excellent and pertinent, answering more of the points raised on the theory. I suspect Gerard t'Hooft's comments may be a bit too focussed on the SM and it's preservation, but nobody will abandon any liferaft however poor until a clearly better one is right there.

    However I'll discuss your on your blog, when I return.

    Best of luck.

    Peter

    Akinbo,

    I agree. Answers;

    1. Ionosphere's are almost exactly plasma sphere's. The Earth's magnetic field seems to have a strong influence. As AE said "bodies are not 'IN' space but are "spatially extended". The other function is speed. Planets with lower EM fields and less speed through the QV have the weakest magnetospheres and thus bow shocks. A dense atmosphere helps. Jupiters has been found as absolutely massive! The size of the moon as viewed from earth.

    Have you ever wondered about the difference between a meteor and a comet? Forget current theory, check out simply 'speed'!

    Earth 'IS' part of the body, the core. Your question is like asking does a boat interact with it's bow wave! The shock is a two-fluid plasma, fermion conjugate pairs 'popping up' in the 'outer' QV frame and with MHD mixing between the frames.

    2. Dark Matter can be everywhere, not just in the shocks where it's far more dense (including the halo). Pioneer/Voyager anomaly is explained but the shock matter itself. Your description of c needs mor parametrisation. c is always the same locally, but that's equivalent to locally in two moving buses. It is the same c, but not seen as the same from the evidence available from any one observer frame, which can only directly measure the local c. Only the Proper Time of the local frame can be measured. Signals from other frames change on transition (shock/TZ far/near field crossing).

    3. I'll have to consider that when back from hols. Entropy is not a favorite concept of mine at all.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Dear Peter,

    thanks for your comment, I'm also sorry for the delay inanswering.

    I also like your point of view. It is not totally different to my approach. It contains a lot of geometric ideas, in particular the representation of the quantum state as helical wave. I also have helical states (but in the foliation).

    I rated your essay also very high but a longer time ago.

    Now to your question about granularity: There is an isomorphism between piecewise-linear and smooth 4-manifolds. Therefore the granularity is not important for the results. Of course there is a limit (lower bound) for the number of used cells to describe the 4-manifold but nothing more.

    Best wishes

    Torsten

    Hello Peter,

    This seems to be one of the more interesting approaches I've read so far. Am I to understand that the Law of the Reducing Middle is analogous to there being infinite real numbers between integers?

    If so then I think this turns the whole question on its head and is very thought provoking.

    The nearest my essay gets to yours is that it moves beyond binary via Fibonacci's sequence, suggesting that information exchange suggests a code of nature.

    Regards

    Antony

    Anthony,

    Thank you. Yes, Infinite real numbers between integers/binaries of any scale or set, and Fibonacci's sequence is a direct analogy.

    I appreciate your ability to then see the whole of nature from a quite new viewpoint. It seems so few can, particularly those with the present popular doctrines most deeply embedded in their belief system

    When we then study it more closely we can find the whole picture clarified as all the unnecessary nonsensical interpretations fall away.

    I look forward to reading your essay.

    Peter

      Peter,

      Thanks for your most inciting and harmonious essay. I completely agree with you when you say Superluminal signaling is false as I myself have written an article on quantum entanglement and in which I have shown how QE has nothing to do with Superluminal signaling.

      Best of luck in the contest.

      sreenath

      Dear

      Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

      So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

      I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

      I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

      Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

      Best

      =snp

      snp.gupta@gmail.com

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

      Pdf download:

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

      Part of abstract:

      - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

      Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

      A

      Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

      ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

      . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

      B.

      Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

      Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

      C

      Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

      "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

      1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

      2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

      3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

      4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

      D

      Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

      It from bit - where are bit come from?

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

      ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

      Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

      E

      Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

      .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

      I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.