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

              Dear Guo Chenxi,

              You have nicely derived Newtonian physics on the basis of relativistic considerations of the electro-magnetic properties of matter. The method employed is elegant and the math is simple enough to understand by anybody. Thanks for writing such a complex subject in an easily graspable manner.

              Your essay also needs a very high rating of above 8 and for that I need your response from you in my thread.

              Best regards,

              Sreenath

              Hello Than

              Thanks for giving me a very useful comment. I think it deserve me take time to go through, and your essay too, I've download.

              Best wishes

              Chenxi

              8 days later

              Dear Chenxi,

              I agree that It can't be from Bit too!

              Good luck too!

              Antony

              Dear Chenxi,

              I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others too - if not all.

              I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something. Your thread was one affected by this.

              I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes so know that I rated it very highly.

              Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.

              Best wishes,

              Antony