Dear Israel,

Your article seems to prematurely conclude at the point where it says:

"A: I got your point. As I see it, this may be a matter of semantics..."

I must confess, I don't see your point, because the differences between the various theories are not merely a matter of semantics.

For example, there is quite a fundamental difference between Tegmark's MUH and the "universe as a simulation" hypothesis. For starters, the universe as a simulation is not even truly compatible with the laws of quantum physics, which show that the period inbetween observations cannot be simulated. Moreover, the concept of a simulation implies that the universe is represented by a configurational state which changes as a function of time -- which again, is contradicted by findings in quantum physics showing that there are temporal dependencies across the time dimension, not to mention that relativity shows us that there is no global reference frame for time. Thus, the only way to represent the whole of spacetime in a formal system is to represent all past and future events simultaneously, which is not really what a simulation is.

    Dear Israel,

    Thank you for the nice reply. You are correct about the theoretical experiments and simulations, especially when the equations have real and imaginary values to be setup initially.

    I feel when you are conducting real observational experiments, there should not be any manipulations. What do you say?

    You got a very good way of presenting things with a smooth flow of English. You made us understand about the current research in a well manner. There are no equations ....

    .....

    .....

    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.

    Best

    =snp

    Hello Dr. Perez.

    Your essay seems to be a call to everyone to go back to basics, or at least change its current direction. I note in other essays references to criticisms which speak to the ever widening gap between scientists and their ability to understand each other, and I suspect if that continues we may see more and more schisms within fields as well as between fields. There are also concerns that the ever growing numbers and the ever diminishing returns in pure science are starting to worry those who see chit chat evolving into squabbles over nothing.

    My essay comes out of left field, and I suspect it is being dismissed out of hand by those too busy to notice, because on first sight it doesn't fit into the normal chit chat. It's title "Hierarchical Space-Time" is not doubt an instant put off, but then I found I had to take ten steps back in order to find a rock solid enough to keep me grounded. I would appreciate any criticisms you may have, because in the end it is better to be criticized than ignored.

    Zoran.

      Hi Israel,

      To follow up -- while it is true that Mach's principle does not figure into the mathematics of general relativity, the philosophy of Mach's principle does motivate GR, as Einstein himself admitted. In fact, Einstein agrees with you that such "common sense" virtue *should* motivate the mathematics by which we make closed logical judgments on how nature behaves.

      It is special relativity that limits the common sense of Mach's principle to local events, which makes it uncommonly hard to unite those events with the global assumptions of Mach. If all physics is local, though, as Einstein avers, I think you will like the part of my essay (it isn't yet approved for posting) that deals with finite sets of infinite things.

      All best,

      Tom

      Dear Sir,

      Your essay begins with a conversation of Alice with her friend and ends with both enjoying the discussion. So is the reader, who is guided through a maze of analysis with suspense in each turn like the experience of Alice in the Wonderland till the reader - laymen included - ends with enjoying the essay. We must admit, midway we cheated and switched to the last para to come back again after being satisfied with the conclusion.

      A computer program is GIGO - garbage in garbage out. It cannot go beyond its programming. Hence it is bound by the ideas of the programmer like a work of fiction. In view of the chaos theory, can we trust simulations without back up data in the shape of independent information? A small mistake or lapse or ignorance in the initial conditions may make giants out of Lilliputians. Incidentally, believing space and time to be discrete does not make them discrete. Taking out pots of water from the ocean does not make the ocean full of pots of water.

      Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the "internal structural space" from the "external relational space". Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. Mathematical space always contains one dimension less than physical space.

      The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance - linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation. Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this fantasy?

      The states of matter are described by their dimension, which differentiate the "internal structural space" - bare mass from the "external relational space" - the radiative mass. It is perceived through electromagnetic radiation (ocular perception), where an electric field and a magnetic field, move perpendicular to each other and also to the direction of their motion. Thus, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. For this reason, we classify the states of matter as solid, fluid or gaseous, depending upon whether the dimension is fixed, unfixed or unbound.

      Your argument against multiverse includes argument against the equivalence principle. The light ray from outside can be related to the space craft only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing both the space emitting light and the spacecraft. If the passengers could observe the scene outside the space-craft, they will notice this difference and know that the space craft is moving. In that case, the reasons for the apparent curvature will be known. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the space craft, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside the space craft. The emission of the ray will be restricted to those emanating from within the spacecraft. In that case, the ray will move straight inside the space craft. In either case, the description of Einstein is faulty. Thus, both SR and GR including the principles of equivalence are wrong descriptions of reality.

      There is a problem with Tegmark's views. Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics. These are not baggage. The left hand side of all equations depicts freewill since we are free to change the parameters. The right hand side depicts determinism, since once the parameters are changed, the outcome is fixed. The equality sign, which links both, depicts special conditions, which must be satisfied the reaction to take place (such as certain temperature threshold).

      You are welcome to visit our essay:

      "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published here on May 31.

      Regards,

      basudeba

        Israel,

        Absolutely excellent essay and wonderfully refreshing approach, right in line with my own thesis. I also enjoyed your presentation method, though it perversely departed from reality somewhat in that Alice hardly got a look in! lol.

        But seriously it was an absolute joy to read. Can you really drag physics back to the physical world? Many other may then understand the propositions in my own essay, which clearly to me provide all required resolutions, but you're clearly correct in the implication, conscious or not, that its not a case of having to FIND the right solutions, it's a case of thinking in such a way that, hiding right before our eyes, they become visible. I believe much may now become visible to you well before most.

        I'll comment no more for now as I'd very much like you to read and comment on mine, but there are a number of compatible themes I'd like to discuss.

        Very well done, and thank you for restoring my faith in at least part of physics.

        Best of luck

        Peter

          Dear Israel,

          An essay with a refreshing approach. Many comments have been expressed on this blog especially those of Peter Jackson, Anthony, Cristinel, Basudeba, etc which I agree with so no need repeating.

          My first and probably only question for you is this: When did we start losing our "common sense"?

          You state that common sense was lost in the XXth century. But I disagree. Someone and his pupil, wrote a book called Elements more than 2000 years ago and upon which ALL current physics is based, geometry, the science of space, being crucial to all physical theories, both quantum and classical.

          In that book, lines were drawn and despite what we could see with our eyes, we were told that though the lines physically existed, they had no breadth. This was hotly disputed but eventually overlooked. And up till today no one has demonstrated a line without breadth or a surface without depth in this world. Or have you seen such a physical (not mathematical) surface or line?

          The consequence of this for physics in a real world is also unaddressed. Mathematicians can enjoy the study of objects in a Platonic world, but this luxury is not open to physicists. Physicists are to study the things in this world and not in a Platonic one.

          Therefore, I argue that if we have to regain our common sense we should start from where we started losing it. A natural consequence is that space will assume substantival properties and other consequences must follow from this. If we start from the XX century, we run the risk of starting all over again after encountering paradoxes again down the line.

          All the best.

          Akinbo

          *If you find the time, comments on my essay will be welcome.

            Dear Tom

            Indeed, Mach's principle was an inspiration for GR. And I also agree that first one should have a picture in mind and then look for the appropriate mathematics. Although, in modern physics, most theoreticians works in the opposite direction.

            Thanks for your comments. I'll look for your essay as soon as it appears.

            Good luck in the contest

            Regards

            Israel

            Dear Satyavarapu

            Thanks for your comments.

            You: I feel when you are conducting real observational experiments, there should not be any manipulations. What do you say?

            I agree, that's professional ethic. In my career, I'm not aware of manipulations of results. It may happen but honestly it is very rare. Nobody will risk his career and reputation for a thing like that. Experimentalist report what they get, whether it agrees or not with theories and models.

            You: And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

            If we knew reality, we wouldn't be doing physics.

            You: We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule..

            I agree. To be honest this is a relatively new field in physics, so we don't know much about the universe. The proposals that you hear are the first attempts to explain the observations, but there are still many speculations. So, you are welcomed to put forward your version of the cosmos. But if you are planning to do that you should do it professionally following scientific protocols.

            I'll try to read your work asap.

            Good luck in the contest

            Regards

            Israel

            Dear Cristinel

            Thanks again for your comments.

            Indeed we can talk about different kinds of intuitions, but in any case I think our mathematical picture of the world should be aligned with our intuitive one.

            You: If some pope during Copernicus's or Galileo's time had the intuition build on the incomplete knowledge at that time, that the Earth is not moving, how could Galileo appeal to pope's intuition to explain that in fact it is moving?

            Strictly speaking, one could easily explain the notion of system of reference which I think is very intuitive too. Well, as I said in my essay, electrodynamics, classical mechanics, thermodynamics, optics, mechanics of fluids, etc. they are very intuitive.

            You: should Einstein give up and explain everything in terms of the ether?

            Lorentz succeeded in explaining (what we now called) relativistic phenomena using the ether. Actually, Lorentz' ether theory reproduces the same physics as special relativity. it was only forgotten because of SR was axiomatic, simpler and easier to handle, but that doesn't mean that Lorentz' theory is wrong. It is still valid.

            You: Maxwell's equations are so simple, but trying to explain them by ether or gear mechanisms is so complicated.

            Well, Maxwell attempted to give a microscopic explanation of the mechanisms involved in electromagnetic phenomena and, actually, to a certain extent he also succeeded, but for practical matters, at that time, his formulation was unnecessary. Today, it is necessary to understand the structure of particles and the quantum vacuum. So in this sense, we are continuing the job that Maxwell did, what are then strings, loops, causal sets, axions, etc.? They are nothing but the modern version of Maxwell job.

            You: It is not true that nobody understands 11D or landscapes..

            Of course, only those who know the math will understand the meaning of this. Same for QM and any other abstract theory. The others will have to conform with the mathematical interpretation which obviously they won't understand. This is my concern, we should look for more credible explanations, 2 or 1000 dimensions in math there is no problem, but are they real or just a mathematical artifice derived from the symmetry and the beauty of the equations? This is the part that many physicists don't buy.

            You: Also, in the most abstract math, people don't derive the results by making blind calculations... ...and get the results.

            Yes, I'm aware how models are constructed, I agree, I just saying that we need to have a clear picture of the physics. For instance, the wave-particle duality. Many people argue, that these two notions are complementary. I would say that light cannot be both things. So, what I'm having in mind is that there is something more fundamental than a particle and a wave that encompasses both concepts. When we understand that a particle and wave have a common source we will dissipate this duality. We intuitively understand what a particle and a wave are, but when we deal with an experiment such as the double slit experiment our picture of light is as a wave, and then when we talk about the photoelectric effect our picture of light is a particle. Obviously, for intuition light cannot be two things. My proposal is then to propose another physical object that reproduces both aspects of light. Then we would have a mathematical formulation of this object and an only one intuitive picture of light. I'm working in this part.

            You: when we want to learn about quantum vacuum, should we also learn condensed matter physics?

            Well, if this solves the problems and simplifies the physics, the answer is affirmative. But, I don't think it would be necessary.

            Finally, I'm aware that math is fundamental in physics, I don't deny it but from my view the present unifying proposals are failing to give a credible description of the world. Giving this status, I will do as much as possible to create a theoretical framework for a unifying theory that can be as intuitive as Newtonian mechanics. The last section of my essay makes this feasible. However, we have to be conscious that the task is titanic and therefore it would take some time.

            Best regards

            Israel

            Hi Vasilyeva

            It's nice to know about you again. I'm also glad you enjoyed reading my essay. Thanks also for the wishes, it'd be great if my essay make it the finals.

            I just watched that your essay was published, it'll be nice to read it, I was very much delighted last year with your work and I'm sure this time you also did an excellent job. I'll read it asap. Glad to know that you found an advantage of the privilege frame I wish most colleagues did the same (sarcasm).

            At the moment, I only have a request for you, If it is not much to ask, I'd be very happy if you could tell me your name. Thanks

            Best Regards and good luck too!

            Israel

            Hi Edwin

            Thanks for your insightful comments. I'll address them the best I can.

            You: As already noted..., ... appears to be brewing. We'll see.

            I agree with this, but in recent years things are starting to change due to the fact that the abstract approach is not giving the expected results. There exists a moderate movement of important physicists and philosophers supporting the old way of doing physics. Actually, the FQXi project is one the consequences. Of course, the change would take some years more.

            You: i.e., the 120 order error in vacuum energy..

            Since most physicists believe that GR and QM are both correct, they ignore the anomaly. As long as there is no other alternative theory to replace QM or GR, the anomalies remain there until a new theory solves it. Recall for instance, the Michelson-Morley experiment. From the perspective of Maxwell's theory it was an anomaly, and it remained as such from 1887 until 1904-5.

            You: But the physics... ..substance-less nature. A very nice example.

            Yeah, this is clear for many physicists, but some others don't even understand it. It seems that relativity causes a blinding effect.

            You: I would also mention... ...common sense.

            I think you did a great job, and it would be nice if you could publish your results in scientific journals, that would grant scientific status and recognition to your work. Barbour is a case similar to yours. I'll take a look at Vishwakarma essay asap.

            Best regards

            Israel

            Hi Stuart

            Well, if we just fixed our attention to that sentence, we could notice that Alice is not sure at all. She says "may be a matter of semantics". That's her guess based on the poor knowledge she has of the topic. However, in a broader sense the sentence is related to the unification problem. The problem is the same and unique. So, to solve it there are several approaches. LQG proposes a theoretical context with a 3 dimensional space, loops, background independence, etc. whereas string theory contributes with 11 dimensions, calabi-yau spaces, strings, etc. and so on with the other alternatives. In this sense, this is a matter of semantics, because every theory tries to solve the same problem with a different UNDERSTANDING and thus MEANING of the reality.

            You: For example,... ...observations cannot be simulated.

            Indeed, due to the lack of space in my essay I couldn't go into the details and the complications that you are pointing out. I agree, that the computational formalism has many problems. One of them is that it only works with discrete units. The US army and NASA have had a terrible time with this because sometimes accuracy is very important to control the trajectory of projectiles and computers cannot get all the real numbers. This severely limits the scope of this approach.

            You: ...not to mention that relativity shows us that there is no global reference frame for time.

            In this part, I have a disagreement. Indeed SR excludes this kind of frames, but in my previous essay I discussed that the preferred frame of reference is not at variance with the principle of relativity. You may wish to take a look at it: http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2012.1#perez. As well you may wish to take a look at Daryl Janzen's essay from the past contest and the present one. He also supports this view and he was one of the winners in the previous contest.

            Regards

            Israel

            Hi Zoran

            Thanks for leaving your comments. Indeed, the FQXi is one those projects that attempts to recover that spirit and at the same time is the result of a splitting in the physics community.

            You: I note in other essays references to criticisms which speak to the ever widening gap between scientists and their ability to understand each other, and I suspect if that continues we may see more and more schisms within fields as well as between fields.

            As I mention in my essay there are several proposals that attempt to explain physical observations. The number continues growing and the schism will be worst in the forthcoming years. Only few people have realized where the problem is but we are minority. So, this would take many years more.

            I'd be glad to read your essay. I'll write it down in my long list. So, please be patient, I'll try to comment asap.

            Best Regards

            Israel

            Dear Basudeba

            Thanks for your comments and for the invitation to read your essay, I'm trying to keep up with the reading, so, it would take some time to read your essay, I'll do it asap.

            You: Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this fantasy?

            This is what I discuss in my essay. Math is used in physics not only to model physical observations but also to quantify. Without math it would be impossible to make quantifiable predictions. The extra dimensions approaches are only models attempting to explain observations and quantify. If one disagrees with such or such view one should make a proposition and follow the scientific protocols. This is what scientists do. In particular, I don't agree with String theory and that's why I'm putting forward my conception of the universe.

            I also feel that GR is not fundamentally correct.

            Good luck in the contest

            Regards

            Israel

            Hi Peter

            Nice to read you again. I'm glad you had fun reading my essay. I'd like to answer your question.

            As I mention in essay, there are many physicists who are confident that understanding space can take us out of the present conundrum but it would take some time to finish this titanic task. We just have to do some adjustments to our way of conceiving the intuitive reality.

            As you may imagine I a have a long list before reading your essay but I'll try to do it asap. Thanks for reading and commenting my essay.

            Best Regards

            Israel

            Hi Akimbo

            Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. In relation to your question, we have to keep in mind that classical physics is highly intuitive and goes along with experience and common sense, I would say that relativity starts to depart from common sense drastically and QM is a worst case. But, I'm working in fixing all these "mess".

            The issue here is that physics has to quantify and this is why we need to use math as a fundamental tool, without math, physics loses its power of prediction and it would look as pure natural philosophy.

            Do not worry, many physicists are confident that we have found the way out of the puzzle. The key is space. Thanks for inviting to read your essay I'll do it asap.

            Best Regards

            Israel

            I found your historical perspective on the development of the ideas of physics to be very interesting - especially how over the centuries we've moved away from a balanced 'intuitive-abstract' take on reality, so that we presently greatly accentuate abstractions.

            To pursue your thought, I'd say that we are progressively getting lost in abstraction, and that in a sense physics is painting itself into a corner where no-one can figure out the meaning of the phenomena that are being expressed.

            This, I think you'll agree, is how we came to consider that the material universe is simply information. The concept that the universe is a computer-like system can only be taken so far - not very far, and probably not very usefully either.

            The computer is cognition, and cognition is an imprint of observed phenomena, whether it occurs in the brain or in a machine.

            In what way is the Cosmos an imprint?

            I agree with you that our quest for a Unified Field cannot be framed in terms of computers 'taking over', but rather in those terms we have experienced and developed over the evolutionary span.

            I was intrigued by the point you make about a vacuum not being devoid of electromagnetic properties. Does this not tie in with the concept of a field of Cosmae, all of which are interacting within a field of energy? Indeed, you speak of the correlation of space and time - and in this regard especially I think you will find much of interest in my essay: 'The Correlation of It and Bit in a Cosmic System'.

            In it, I describe how this correlation occurs as a result with our Cosmic system's interaction with the General Field of Cosmae.

            I describe our four fundamental forces as being the 'splitting up' of a 'Gravitational-Magnetic Force' that comes from the energy field that envelops our Cosmos - a Force that simultaneously affects each of its Particles individually, and sub-divides them into the three groups that define our Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive entities.

            Both the Cosmos and the Observer are similarly affected by this Force, so that it maintains them in Correlation over billions of years.

            Thus, the 'single-field' Cosmos (consisting of the Observer viewing the Cosmos) is replaced by a structure that accounts for our participatory Cosmos.

            Your argument points us in a common direction: If we must retain the intuitions that are fundamental to our natures as evolving creatures, we must recognize the correlation that has always existed between the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms.

            Since you essentially conclude, I believe, that we cannot truly choose between 'Bit to It', or 'It to Bit' - is there not then simply a correlation between information and the physical universe? And in searching for a Unified Field, are we not simply searching for this correlation - not only as it applies to space and time, but also to the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms?

            I hope you will let me know if you think the points you raise are resolved in the Paradigm I've developed: Is it credible, does it contradict nothing that is known, and is it usefully applicable to all foundational questions - paving the way for these to be explored empirically?

            Like you, I particularly value credibility - an equilibrium between intuition and abstraction that has always been, and will always be, a very strong and useful component in our evolution - and in the future of Physics.

              Dear Dr. Perez, this year I dared to to print my name bellow the title in my essay :)

              As an outsider I am a crank by definition lol. It's enough for me that my friends ridicule my participation in this contest. But I can't talk to them about physics. That's why I very much value your feedback and was thrilled to have talked to you last year.

              Thank you,

              -Marina

              Dear Hoang

              Thanks for leaving your comments and the invitation to read yours. I'll will try to read your essay asap.

              I agree with some of your points, the new theory should be as simple as possible, considering an absolute system of reference. Although as Newton discussed, we can only measure relative quantities. Objects have two motions absolute and relative.

              A theory should be written in mathematical language in order to quantify phenomena if a theory doesn't display a mathematical formulation it is not a scientific proposal (at least in physics). I recommend that you implement calculations in your theory. I wish you good luck in the contest.

              Best Regards

              Israel