Vladimir,

Many thanks for the review, I look forward to checking out your research. Interested to see whether you think of these nodes the same way as Maxwell's curl works.

If you are interested in Nordstroem's theories I highly recommend starting at "2.2 The Lorentz Model of a Field Equation" in PATHWAYS OUT OF CLASSICAL PHYSICS

originally located within

The Genesis of General Relativity. It is my intention to consult this as a helpful guide as I modify Nordstroem's theory using Area Calculus.

Thanks for the well wishes, perhaps we can all together correct some things while you are still around to enjoy the show!

Kind Regards,

Jeff

    Armin,

    I will be working on a future paper that I can hopefully enter into another contest comparing and contrasting GR, Nordstroem's Theory and my modification. I did post another paper to Vixra but it was before I found out about Nordstroem's previous theory. I will use some of that material as a jumping off point. Also within it is how to modify the tensor for a perfect fluid, Here.

    Thanks

    Jeff

    snp,

    I now see what you mean by producing matter out of information. What I would state is that I can produce pure information and equate that to a wave within a perfect fluid. That wave would be matter, so the answer to your question is yes.

    Thanks

    Jeff

    Hello Jeff,

    Your essay caught my eye and I browsed through very briefly. You may wish to check out my essay and rate as you think because it is all about what you said, "We conclude that everything is up for review including our most basic assumptions. Without a mathematical language that includes the information of area, we may not be able to describe our Universe". I will also be asking you if there is a lower limit to dx. Meanwhile...

    As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

    "If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...

    1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

    2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

    3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

    Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

    4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

    Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

    Best regards,

    Akinbo

      Hi Akinbo,

      For your question to whether there is a lower limit to dx, I would have to reply that there must be limits from empirical observations.

      My answers to your questions would be

      1-0-1-maybe

      I hadn't considered whether it might be possible to model all matter as units of the presence or absence of Planck Lengths but it is an intriguing question. Thanks for the new path of thought.

      I will check out your essay also.

      Regards,

      Jeff

      Relevancy: 1

      I didn't find the topic to have anything to do with "information" so I didn't see the relevancy to the topic. I can kinda see that calculus is used to produce information.

      Interesting: 2

      I was hoping to find something about attractive/repelling forces are created by the vectors you describe, but this is just too mathematically dense to correspond to something you can visualize. In order to be of general interest, you loose all the regular folks like myself who read Scientific American with all the math. After reading your intro and conclusion, I'm still not sure what your points were. Sorry... I want to know what the other 96% is made out of and I didn't get that from your essay.

        Franklin,

        The instructions for this contest state:

        Possible topics or sub-questions include, but are not limited to:

        What IS information? What is its relation to "Reality"?

        So I am not sure whether you were confused about the topic of the contest or topic of my essay. "Area" is information. Zero Area=Zero Information=Zero Energy

        I will try next time to graphically illustrate how changing areas correspond to changing volumes and into changes in density and pressure of the vacuum modeled as a fluid.

        Dear Baugher,

        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

        Thank you Jeff,

        I answered to your post in my forum.

        And give me time please. I need read your work one more time.

        George

        Dear Jeff

        Thank you for posting on my thread. I did a reply there, please have a look there.

        So you think we can produce matter from nothing but just by thinking or by the description of matter available some where like in a computer memory?

        Regarding your essay, I am having questions too...

        You may please know that Dark matter, and Dark energy are mathematical problems. If you solve mathematics properly, they don't appear!

        I hope to have a good discussion with you about all these...........

        Best

        =snp

        Dear Jeff,

        In your essay you have made very valiant effort to revive Gunnar Nordstrom's gravitational theory on the basis of your newly invented Area Calculus (metric field theory) and you have succeeded in predicting at least gravitational redshift and you hope to predict gravitational lensing by developing this theory. Regarding accelerating expansion, you are saying that "in essence, the late appearance of an accelerating expansion would be due to the inherent quantization of energy levels, which are quantized reductions in vacuum energy density". I want to know what you precisely you mean by that. By information you mean matter and dimensions and it is stored as integrals and also that by the processing of information you mean derivatives and these derivatives are forces and energy; thereby you have given geometric meaning to matter, dimensions, forces and energy, like in general relativity. You have rightly said that our current models can only account for about 4% of our own kind of energy density in the universe and so everything is up for review including our most basic assumptions. Finally you have concluded that "Without a mathematical language that includes the information of area, we may not be able to describe our Universe". That is without information (Bit) it is not possible for us to describe the universe, that is, reality (It) through the language of mind, that is, mathematics. Thus the union of all three (It, Bit and mind) is essential for our knowledge to exist. This is also the conclusion I have come to in my essay. So, please, go through my essay and express your comments on my essay in my thread. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

        The thoughts you have put up in your essay are logically consistent and you got to develop them further so as to engross all problems pertaining to current day cosmology. Figures in the essay make it easy to comprehend your ideas.

        Wish you best of luck in your endeavor,

        Sreenath

          Dear Jeff,

          Please have a look, and discuss on any point, you feel not satisfied. . . .

          http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/11/fundamental-questions-addressed-by.html

          Fundamental questions addressed by Dynamic Universe Model

          This Model is new Cosmological model fundamentally and mathematically different from Bigbang, Steady state model etc. I am giving below its Foundational points, Present Day unsolved problems, which can't be solved by other prominent models, New Satellite Mass reduction technology and publications (Four Books published).

          Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model:

          -No Isotropy

          -No Homogeneity

          -No Space-time continuum

          -Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

          -No singularities

          -No collisions between bodies

          -No blackholes

          -No warm holes

          -No Bigbang

          -No repulsion between distant Galaxies

          -Non-empty Universe

          -No imaginary or negative time axis

          -No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

          -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

          -No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

          -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

          -No many mini Bigbangs

          -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

          -No Dark energy

          -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

          -No Multi-verses

          Best

          =snp

          Hi Dear Jeff,

          I have read and good rated your work. From your answer (in my forum) I saw you are a little bit sad with my advice about your efforts on gravity problem. Sorry my friend, maybe I have say not like that which I want actually you perceive. Dealt is you are fully right when you says ,,need to change the paradigm of investigation,,. I want tell you only - it is really need change and very deeply - i.e. by forgetting the formal-mathematical reasons (temporarily!)and by trying to solve the problem using the LOGIC only. It looks now very strange what I am saying (because of our education!) But, it really works (just believe me!)

          Best wishes,

          George

          Hello Jeff -

          I was impressed by your very thorough revision of metric field theory - and I agree with you that it is stunning to find we are ignorant of 96% of the universe!

          Yes, the math must be reconsidered - and indeed all of our assumptions too.

          In my essay, I've taken a non-mathematical approach - though the math will have to be developed - and I've described in physical terms a paradigm that accounts for the Cosmos as a confluence of energy vortices.

          This might seem a little irrelevant to what you are saying, but if we are to review everything, we need to consider that our key central assumption is that inorganic reality is fundamental - while life and cognition are merely chemical. There are many interesting insights to be gained from considering life and cognition as fundamental - not least of which is the manner in which they appear correlated with inorganic reality.

          I'm particularly interested in the point of view of mathematicians, since my paradigm must be expressed in mathematical language one day.

          I have read and rated your work, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

          Best of luck in the contest,

          John

            Thank you Jeff

            Maxwell's Curl? Hmm I am afraid I think visually and mechanically, and the mathematical formulation only confuses me...but from the name 'curl' I would say it sounds like it has to do with angular momentum. In fact in Fig. 4 of my essay I showed Maxwell's aether drawing rotating 'gears' with arrows showing how the e/m energy is transmitted.

            I will study Nordstoem's theory, and look forward to your reworking it using Area Calculus. Thank you for your well wishes for longevity to witness the necessary and inevitable end of physics as they know it!

            BTW if you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes. Good luck with your work.

            Vladimir

            Sreenath,

            Many thanks for the kind comments. It is extremely gratifying to see that someone understands the main points of an essay, regardless of whether they agree with them yet or not. You have very well summarized my work into the context of your own, which allows me to understand yours even better. I do agree with the majority of your essay except of course "From the recent success of the theory of GR, in explaining all the known facts connected to gravitation to the predicted accuracy, we can safely say that if any discrepancy is seen between the theory and observation, the observed fact is not related to gravitation (i.e. non-gravitational) and if it is purely gravitational then it must comply with the value predicted by GR." I hope that perhaps Nordstroem's theory and Area Calculus might give you pause now in that confidence. I will post my comments on your wonderful essay on your page soon.

            Kind Regards,

            Jeff

            SNP,

            I will be sure to take a look at your pages.

            Thanks

            Jef

            Dear Jeff,

            Thanks for your kind comments and appreciate rating my essay highly. I am too going to rate your essay much more favorably.

            Regarding your query " Since technology has allowed us to view further into space, would you call this an enlargement of the Biosphere since we now can absorb Information from previously undetectable sources?"; it is not due to the enlargement of the biosphere but it is due to the enlargement of our vision (knowledge) of our 'mind'. Similarly, to your another query, "Would you state that the evolutionary process of gathering data becomes more fine tuned as Life attempts to reconcile discontinuous Bits in Information of It(GR and QM)?"; again it is due to 'the evolution of the knowledge of mind' rather than due to Life.

            If you have further queries, please, inform me.

            Best of luck in the essay contest

            Sreenath

            John,

            Many thanks for the kind comments. I have replied within your own thread on your imaginative essay. I hope that once I write another essay on a re-evaluation of the stress-energy tensor I get an imaginative writer such as your self to probe any points I may have not considered.

            Kind Regards,

            Jeff