Chenix,

Please note, Hoang has been saying the 'exact' same thing to everyone else. Enough said...

Manuel

Chengxi Guo,

I read this essay as an attempt by an engineer to make sense out of what modern physists talks. Being an engineer myself, I have also tried to make sense of many interpertation of observations by scientists.

You are invite to have a look '5-dimensional universe' in last years competition.

Vijay Gupta

Proponent Unary Law (Space Contains Knergy)

    Edwin Eugene Klingman:

    Very glad to receive your cooments! I have download you essay, and will read

    carefully.

    And also, thank you recommendation, I think it helpfull.

    Best reguard

    Guo Chenxi

    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.

      6 days later

      Chenxi,

      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

        6 days later

        Edwin Eugene Klingman:

        Please forgive my reply just now. I took time to read your article.I agree with your statements: Yet conjectured strings, branes, axions, anyons, super-symmetry, multiple dimensions and universes have only imagined reality. Not so gravity.

        I think that gravitation is the cohesion property of matter, it cannot be derived from other theories. What we can do is to depict it in any language you like, that's it. It's the nature.

        Good Lucks

        Guo Chenxi

        10 days later

        Dear chenxi guo,

        Einstein was trying to unify gravity and electromagnetism too, so I think you are asking very fundamental and relevant questions here! I found your approach very interesting as I also have a theory that partly unifies the four forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony.

        Did you conclude Bit or It more fundamental? Either way top marks from me!

        Thoroughly enjoyed your work!

        Noticing Bertrand Russell in the references is always a welcomed addition too!

        Best wishes,

        Antony

          Thanks Gupta.

          I've read your paper on CMB.You have done very important work.

          "No Dark matter, No dark energy, No Bigbang. No Creation of matter from empty space."

          "Information describes the Universe. Universe is materialistic."

          Yes,I agree with you.

          Best wishes

          Guo Chenxi

          Thanks, Vijay Mohan Gupta. I've download your essay, and will look.

          Thanks Jim.

          It's interesting. I ike to read "It's good to be the king"

          Best wishes

          Chenxi

          Dear Antony

          Thanks for share your opinions here.

          I think "it can't be from bit". It is more fundamental. Bit or information can only be from reality. But the formation of informaton are depend on the object we described and the method we used by.

          Good luck

          Chenxi

          The Main Point of this essay:

          1. Emphasize the identity of mass and energy, the intrinsic property of matter is electromagnetic. E=mc^2 can be regarded as a definition of mass and energy relation.

          2. The principle of constancy of light velocity is ubiquitous, ie: c = const. Thus we have energy of a moving object is

          3.Eo=E cosθ . That means the energy in perpendicular to the moving direction remains unchanged. (See Fig.1)

          4.Give force definition as: force is the amount of the energy changes dE with displacement ds in space, i.e.: F=dE/ds

          5.From above, we can deduce other fundamental physical principles.

          6.Thus, Newtons' law and relativity are unified in clearly physical meanings.

          Dear Chenxi,

          It was a pleasure to read your essay, I found it well grounded well founded and well written. I also happen to agree all your propositions, including c as ubiquitous, but I must ask you a question of something you didn't define; If speed is only a relative concept, what is that constant speed c relative to?

          I don't blame you for avoiding that minefield, but suggest a better answer emerges with enough thought of the excellent and commendable type you're applying.

          I agree substance is energy, and particularly liked your 3 characteristics of energy; Spatial, Additivity, and Cohesion, though I might add Motion. That there can be no energy, so no matter without motion. Would you agree?

          So now we only have to return again ask; Motion with respect to what?!

          Your Eo=E cos theta also made me think. I've taken a rather similar 'realist' and mechanistic approach to you, and used Malus' Law to show it's apparent power to resolve the EPR paradox without needing to exceed c! Energy of each of an entangled pair varies by the cos of the orientation with the polariser and detector field (as does charge time delay). I think this may be related and even more important than we think. I hope you'll read and like my essay. It also challenges a few old assumptions to build an empirically based ontology.

          Well done and thank you for a refreshing dose of intelligent realism worth a top score. I also wish you much luck.

          Very best wishes

          Peter

            Dear Chenxi,

            I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

            Regards and good luck in the contest,

            Sreenath BN.

            http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

              Dear Peter

              I'm very pleased to receive your comments. "no matter without motion", yes, I agree that it is a basic characteristics of matter.

              An eccelant question: "Motion with respect to what?" I avoided this minefield becouse I have realised it is a very important and at the same time is difficult to explain properly in this essay. I hope I will make another paper to complete this task.

              I've download your essay, and will go through.

              Best Regards

              Chenxi

              Dear Chenxi,

              Very nice essay. Address many fundamental issues and deserve a good rating. If you have the time check my essay here and see if you like it. If you don't tell me how I can improve it.

              Best regards,

              Akinbo

                Dear Sreenath

                I have read your essay, elegant, it deserves a good rating.

                Best regard and good luck

                Chenxi

                Dear Chenxi,

                Thanks for appreciating my essay. I will go through your essay and post my comments on it in your thread shortly and rate it highly.

                Best regards,

                Sreenath

                Dear Akinbo

                Thans for your rating. I've download your essay, will go through it and make a comment.

                Best regards and good luck

                Chenxi

                Hello Chenxi

                Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

                (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

                said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

                I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

                The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

                Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

                Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

                I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

                Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

                Good luck and good cheers!

                Than Tin