. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?

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.

===============

Please try Dynamic Universe Model with some numerical values, give initial values of velocities, take gravitation into consideration( because you can not experiment in ISOLATION). complete your numerical experiment.

later try changing values of masses and initial values of velocities....

Calculate with different setups and compare your results, if you have done a physical experiment.

I sincerely feel it is better to do experiment physically, or numerically instead of breaking your head on just logic. This way you will solve your problem faster.....

Best

=snp

Dear Jeff,

I entered the above post wrongly. It was from earlier copy paste...

I entirely agree the concept of vectors is inadequate and have argued the inadequacy of Cartesian systems for modelling motion.

But I got some of my observations...

If can show Missing mass and energy are just calculation errors. If we can show simple arithmetic and Cartesian coordinates are sufficient to show the above things to anyone, will you be able to delete these two from your list? That's what I did in Dynamic Universe model.

By the way I gave you excellent ratings for your keen command on mathematics.

And

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.

best

=snp

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

With many thanks and best wishes,

John

jselye@gmail.com

Hi Jeff,

I read with interest your interesting essay about areas and the ways to calculate them via calculus.

It is good to reexamine our modeling tools and models.

Thanks for your essay.

Don Limuti

  • [deleted]

  • Post #54

Hi Jeff,

Thank you for a deep look at the foundations of our continuum physics. Making sure our mathematical idealizations are actually relevant to what we use them for is essential.

> We conclude that everything is up for review including our most basic assumptions.

You may enjoy my essay Software Cosmos which applies a computational model to resolve several outstanding cosmological puzzles, including Dark Energy. I won't spoil the story by saying how... but I hope you get a chance to read it and let me know what you think.

Hugh

    Dear Jeff,

    Indeed we can utilise the Fibonacci sequence away from a black Holes too. Further, the essay hinges at singularities perhaps being avoided, but simply a mathematical trick.

    My main theory revealed the sequence and 3-dimensional space as what we ought to observe in our universe, with an extra dimension of time.

    The main theory partly unified the four forces and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony.

    There are other more important points in my essay than the black hole, it explains the arrow of time with regard to dimensionality.

    Best wishes,

    Antony

    Dear Jeff,

    Thanks for your reply, I've reciprocated above.

    Best wishes in the contest,

    Antony

    Dear JP,

    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.

      Amazigh,

      Many thanks for reading as also for taking the time to rate my essay. I have replied to you and placed comments concerning your wonderful essay on your page.

      Regards,

      Jeff

      Hi JP,

      You have started your essay with this: "There is no "other" material, only the decrease in something we shall have to think of as the vacuum (energy) density."

      That is awesome as I would read one of my publications e.g. on a spin experiment and spacetime deformations:

      http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0027

      http://vixra.org/abs/1006.0005

      I am not kidding.

      Fortunately there is still a chance to rate your essay (as you can expect you deserve the highest rating). There are differences but the concept itself is important. This idea can possibly change the physics. Take a quick also look at Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga's essay on a geometrization of matter if you have time.

      Best regards,

      Jacek

        Jacek,

        Copying and pasting my reply from your thread:

        I read the two Vixra papers and also your essay. Although there are some minor differences, you are correct in that we certainly are speaking of the same concept. All of these are now how I also have come to view gravity and wave/particles, albeit through a different path:

        "The reason of the gravity phenomenon is that the gravity force of e.g. a planet is a sum (wave packet) of many tiny spacetime deformations (elementary particles) resulting in far-reaching, but relatively weak interaction (the surrounding spacetime expansion). The gravity is not a fundamental but emergent interaction."

        "We assume the matter can be created out of a force field and vanish transforming into the field and we assume not only the matter deforms spacetime. An example: electron - positron pairs are created in (and out of) the vacuum (vacuum polarization). "

        "In brief: every particle (spacetime deformation) movement is a wave and every

        particle is a wave (wave packet) and not: it only possesses a wave properties."

        "In brief: every "massive" object e.g. the earth is a gravitational wave itself. And the

        wave is not traveling outward from the source. There is no source e.g. the Earth is a

        gravitational wave orbiting the Sun along the geodesics."

        "The mathematics we need is partly existing and ready to use for decades because GR

        and QM math are probably only special cases of the spacetime deformations theory

        (being only the concept today)."

        This last quote is how I view the move from Nordstroem's original equation, into the a flat metric (and its perturbations along with the question of what the Cosmological Constant is) and then into the Area Calculus modification:

        Nordstroem:

        [math](-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_0^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2})\phi_{Newton}=0[/math]

        General Relativity:

        [math][/math]

        [math]g_{00}=1-2\phi_{Newton}[/math]

        [math]\Lambda g_{00}[/math]

        Nordstroem modified through Area Calculus:

        [math](-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_0^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2})(\Lambda-2\Lambda\phi_{InvertedNewton})=0[/math]

        The first doesn't seem to predict gravitational lensing, the second seems able to describe the geodesic motion of a positive density "particle" whereas the third would seem to be almost a mirror image of the second but instead describing the geodesic motion of a reduced density wave that is compatible with the theoretical value of the Cosmological Constant from QM, just as you have described. I have given you a top rating, and I hope you will also see the merit within my essay.

        The missing LaTex portion is

        appears in the preview, but apparently not in the posting.

        Note that should read "Poisson" and not "Newton", woops.

        Yuri,

        Hi, yes I have, sorry took so long. Have replied on your page.

        Thanks

        Jeff