Alternative Models of Reality

the fact that these zeros hunt, extend,structure these primes and so the numbers towards the infinite serie becomes interesting considering the ranking of groups of extensions.These spherical volumes and these groups can be relevant to find the bridge for this quantum gravitation which is not baryonic.It exists a bridge for the checking of this paradoxal force.The weakest but the strongest at this quantum scale.These primes and this universal harmonical distribution has many secrets to show us in fact.Primes, gravitation,singularities and sphères ....

James Jose

Very quiet out there. Darwinian physics, does this seem interesting to you or silly? Your first impressions are interesting to me if you will please, and it would be a shame if I wasn't offered a chance to add evidence? I have a host of further considerations, which I believe conveys simple meaning to various universal structures and properties. Really straightforward and down to earth explanations.

Steve

James

Did you submit an essay? I'm looking out for it. A lot of Jameses submitted essays, but no James A Putnam as yet.

Steve

Steven,

Hi, I have been absent. My wife and I have some free time and we are using it. Yes I did submit an essay. Maybe it will show up soon. I had written and reviewed most of it. I got busy and left it hanging thinking I would get back to finishing my review. That time did not come, so in the last hour I submitted it. What lies ahead usually does not significantly depend upon the content of an essay. The ruling paradigms of professional theoretical physics will continue to rule. The voting system will reflect preference for each amateur's own view; and, for professional views that advance theory beyond its current state but including its current state. The professional administrators are more than fair to amateurs. I know of no other place run by professionals that allows free speech from amatuers about physics.

I have printed off your essay and will be reading it. My view of Darwinian evolution has been public on the Internet since 2001. It lacks means to an end. It lacks goals. Darwin or those who followed him misled the scientific community by presenting natural selection as if it was the mechanism responsible for the evolution of life. Natural selection is an after-effect. It does nothing to raise the level of complexity of life. It can only destroy life brought into existence by a cause that is not natural selection. Most importantly, Darwin was careful to recognize that his proposal of the evolution of life could not and did not say anything about the evolution of intelligence. This is an example of a level of understanding that avoided the misunderstandings of his followers both then and now. Today's Darwinians think that dumbness can give rise to intelligence. That is, of course impossible. Darwin either recognized that or at the least understood that nothing about the evolution of life could address the very, very most important question of: Whence came intelligence? Without that answer, there is no evolution theory.

There is evidence of the evolution of intelligent life but, no means by which it could rise above the nearly constant level of one move up versus another move down, or worse, and, definitely more scientifically the case, failure due to the natural persistence of lack of meaning. Meaning must already be available before it can be called up for use. No meaning can be conjured up by theorists' imaginations. There is no possibility of a meaning appearing unless it was already existing! There cannot be a move up unless it was provided for since the beginning of the Universe. Meaning cannot be miraculously added into the Universe after the beginning. Science must not permit miracles to occur after the Universe began. After the Universe began, there must be an explanation that sources from the original condition of the Universe. The origin of the Universe is the only time when 'magic' can be introduced; and, only so long as it is admitted as being miraculous. After that, scientists must show direct empirical support for answers.

This is my opinion. You are invited to challenge it.

James Putnam

James

Oh good, you submitted. I'll keep a lookout.

Yes, if I was trying to win a contest then I wouldnt have related peoples popular notions in a poor light. Like the multiverse as a mathematicians trick with questionable infinities, and anthropic principle as a bad science teacher. Not very diplomatic of me, but I'm here to do as you do, be honest to opinion and share in discussion. It's not so bad if I receive poor reviews, but if I dont get some interested discussion for having presented those views, then I will be disappointed.

I recall reading your views on evolution quite some time ago, but I didnt perceive it in the same way I interpret your current message. You flatly dont buy into Darwinism. I guess my essay wont be of much interest to you then. Thats ok I dont mind. As for challenging your views, I'm not really inclined. I like to pick such battles, and for now I want to focus on convincing people that believe in Darwinian biology that Darwinian can be applied to cosmology. Not convince somebody of Darwinian biology then physics. Thats sounds even harder haha. But just commenting briefly toward a point you made, I'm not opposed to your argument that there are missing details in the explanation of Darwinian evolution, the progressive aspect of it. However you use this argument to detract from evolution, whereas I would suggest there is more to know about biology process.

But anyway, I'm confident you will give me an essay I will judge generously. I do tend to appreciate your content.

Steve

Steven,

Just to be clear. You must already know that clarity requires saying more than one thought was necessary. Evolution of intelligent life did occur. What has not occurred is that there has not been an explanation of how something this incredible can be credibly explained. My point is that the fact of the evolution of intelligent life can be used to guide scientific inquiry.What cannot be used, at least not according to me, are inexplicable 'explanations' that professionals put forward as being settled; all the while that Darwin speaks from the past that: "I have nothing to say about the origin of intelligence". Theoretical physicists, and no other scientific professional, can say something about the origin of intelligence. I know that they keep saying things that are to serve for the rest of us as explanations as to the origin of intelligence. I challenge them that they offer no explanation for the origin or even the development, or most of all, for the evolution of intelligence. Yet the fact of the evolution of the Universe is to be used for scientific purpose. What I call for are answers that do not depend upon the 'fog-of-complexity' for hiding their inadequacies.

James Putnam

James

Sorry, not right to say you dont believe in evolution. I put that wrong. then perhaps you can appreciate my essay. I will be interested to know.

Steve

James

"What I call for are answers that do not depend upon the 'fog-of-complexity' for hiding their inadequacies."

Yes well said, all of it. I'm going to give this some thought and think if there is something can be said of it in relation to my hypothesis. It would be nice to have some thoughtful questions and conversation directed toward my essay.

Steve

Einstein's theory of Gravity has no place

for Gravitational Waves

Dieu Le

Years after the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) instrument's discovered Gravitational Waves, the LIGO scientists still have not provided the answer for this question: "What are the Gravitational waves MADE OF?" or "When someone talks of waves, the instant response should always be, 'Waves of what?' ", as Charles Scurlock put it.

So, as of today, the basic nature of LIGO Gravitational Waves is still a mystery.

Actually, this widely and cheerfully accepted discovery creates much more mysteries and myths that need to be addressed...Attachment #1: Einsteins_theory_of_Gravity_has_no_place_for_Gravitational_Waves_F.doc

Thanks to FQXi Administrators for granting me to post through this platform..

It has been long time that we have people diverting from the main stream with different ideas of their own to pursue a different fragrant of flavor in physics. But there are few countable numbers of people who true grace within them to orient and explore the truth. But so far I have known, there are almost none who are working in to the root level for revising the very basic foundations of physics. We are all working from the branches to orient new physics relying on the common footage or say particularly, the one who works for 'force' relies at common foundation of Newtonian Dynamics. But it is my endeavor to reform it from such level to revolutionize the main stream through the rational way of scientific thinking.In the course, I have posted my research work as 'essay' in the essay contest conducted by the FQXi for this year entitled as 'Newtonian Dynamics: An explicit diversion from Reality'. The related file is attached here with.Attachment #1: Banjara_Newtonian_Dynamics_1.pdf

Once you have committed to an argument over an explanation of definitions, all is lost. Either a definition stands as an axiom or it degrades into an explanation that is a further definition and so no.

This is the way that philosophy works...continuously addressing questions that have no unique answers means that all that happens is more unanswerable questions.

Axioms are the only way out of the recursion of reason and belief. If a discourse cannot agree on axioms, then there really is no need to go further. The arguments about whose axioms are the axioms are never ending recursions.

If you want to start a universe with the axioms of force and acceleration, go for it...but realize that there are simpler axioms like matter and action with which to start a universe.

I am not saying that it is impossible to get a universe to work with just force and acceleration...I am just saying that it seems like the long way around. Mass and action are a lot simpler axioms and seem to agree with observables, so I like matter and action.

To say that matter has no definition without force and acceleration seems like saying that force has no definition without matter and action. In other words...there are many equivalent ways to make up the universe of discrete aether action...

Steve Agnew,

There is no argument over the explanation of definitions. The definitions are the explanations. They are not axioms if they are empirically revealed. All physics definitions must be learned from empirical evidence. Those three that are currently not learned from empirical evidence, mass, temperature, and electric charge, are each holes in physics knowledge. They are filled by theorists' guesses. That in itself, does not render physics equations useless. Theorists have been careful to make certain that their equations accurately model the patterns observed in empirical evidence. It is those patterns that provide usefulness. What is lost is the understanding of the nature of those properties that do not have empirically revealed definitions. Those properties cannot be explained because their explanation is their definition. They remain undefined and unexplained. Here is the method to be followed when defining a physics property: A physics property must be defined in terms of pre-existing properties. Mass was not defined in terms of pre-existing properties. Its nature was not revealed by empirical evidence. It is currently whatever theorists want to make of it. Here is an example of how far afield from real physics mass has been taken. You are teaching others that the properties of action are mass and time. You are teaching others that the units of action are the product of kilograms and seconds. I challenge that you cannot provide the mathematical basis for your belief. You did, in your messages provide a verbal trail, but, that is not the physics involved. The physics involved will have a trail of mathematics showing how the resulting units come about. I say that you cannot provide that mathematical trail.

Quoting you: "Action is a very well known term in physics and is a result of the integration of energy (or equivalent mass) over time or space or spacetime. Thus the units of action are kg s or kg m depending on whether the integration is over time or space. Note that Planck constant/c^2 has the action units of kg s and represents the quantum of action."

James Putnam

Of course, empirical evidence from measurement and observation trump all. However, consciousness needs certain anchors of belief and those anchors are axioms. You choose to believe in space and time and force and acceleration...I choose to believe in just mass and action.

You get your universe up and running, but it keeps stalling out. You introduce more pathologies than you address and so you are stuck in a recursion of your own pathologies. The more you redefine what words mean, the deeper the hole that you dig. This is actually a very common occurrence in many of the treatises.

Mass is so simple that it is difficult to even argue about what things are made of, and yet argue you do. Mass is somehow not defined to some kind of standard. Action is likewise just a statement that things happen. That action has the dimensions of kg s is obvious by h/c^2. Action also has the dimensions of kg m as h tB (Bohr orbit time), which are both quantum definitions of course and just reveal either time or space or even spacetime.

Look...equations for mass and action exist just as do equations for space and time and force and acceleration. Its just that mass and action are simpler, that is all.

You actually are right to focus on charge and gravity since they are both due to photon exchange, but you just have not gotten there yet.

Steve Agnew,

Provide the mathematics!!!

"Mass is so simple that it is difficult to even argue about what things are made of, and yet argue you do. Mass is somehow not defined to some kind of standard. Action is likewise just a statement that things happen. That action has the dimensions of kg s is obvious by h/c^2. Action also has the dimensions of kg m as h tB (Bohr orbit time), which are both quantum definitions of course and just reveal either time or space or even spacetime."

Another attempt to brush me off with a verbal explanation. I say that you cannot provide the mathematical support for your claims. Your claims are wrong physics.

James Putnam

Steve Agnew,

Just to make clear that this is not personal between you and I, it occurred to me that I should make this clear: I say that no one can provide the mathematical support to say that the units of action includes kilograms. I could say more, but your last response indicates that I should bring focus to this conversation. In other words your reference to the units of Planck's Constant does not justify your claim as to what its units correctly are nor that they provide the support that the units of action in general include kilograms. You please, or anyone else please, show the mathematics that leads up to these mathematical claims.

James Putnam

Steve Agnew,

Copying this from your Essay Contest forum:

[You cannot, nor can anyone else, provide the mathematical basis for claiming that the units of Planck's Constant include the units of kilograms. I challenge you, and anyone else who thinks that they know better, to provide the mathematical basis for claiming that Planck's Constant contains the units of kilograms. It cannot be done by anyone. Anyone please provide it!!!

Verbal diversionary tactics count for nothing and accomplish nothing. I invite professionals: Please do this: Handle mass your way, then proceed from the introduction of the property of mass through the mathematics that finally reveal that the units of Planck's Constant include the units of kilograms. Lets make this personal between myself and theoretical physicists as a group. I say you cannot provide the mathematics to show that kilograms is a unit of 'action' anytime, anywhere!!!]

James Putnam

What causes Things Move in Universe?

Things move when encountering a pressure that is stronger than its inertia and its current surroundings'. Simply put, moving is constantly seeking and heading toward emptiness or space with less pressure.Attachment #1: What_causes_Things_Move_in_Universe_D.pdf

The Creation of Momentum

From the gigantic Milky Way Galaxy to the smallest particle in the Universe, everything with mass > 0, regardless of size and shape, when in motion, always disturbs the DM surrounding it. It displaces the DM part in front, leaving behind a void that attracts DM to fill in quickly. Therefore all the particles that make up an object, or a spacecraft, are producing momentum, too, while moving.Attachment #1: The_Creation_of_Momentum.pdf

I am aware of an everyday phenomenon that is comparable to the quantum probability curve. It is something anybody can test for themselves with no effort whats so ever.

Are people aware that the weight transition of a pole in a gravitational field, beginning from a zero weight while balanced on its end at 90 degrees to the ground, then incremental increases in weight as the pole is laid over onto the ground. The weight transition of the pole models the quantum probability curve.

As you lean the pole over in a gravitational field, the weight transition begins disproportionately little at 66 degrees when the pole is still expressing a balance, then normalizes before then transitioning to disproportionately greater weight at 22 degrees from the ground. You can easily feel this yourself by picking up a fence post or some other pole laying around the yard. If you place scales under the pole as I did, you can chart the weight curve that matches the probability curve shown here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#/media/F

ile:Bell.svg

This leads to a very interesting consideration of hidden variable, a classical system which models a quantum probability curve. In the case of the pole, the considerations are of the poles angle of leverage to fight against the force applied to it by a gravitational field. So could be stated as a poles ability to resist changes to its current state of angle, and gravity has to apply a force to overcome the poles current state of angle. The poles ability to resist force applied to it by gravity. So conceptually, it is not hard to imagine a photon being in possession of an ability to resist changes in state of angle, and that the polarization filter applies a force to the photon to alter its state of angle. The results of the interaction between photon and polarizer might then be an issue of angled leverage. The hidden variable would need to make an account of the polarization filters influence on the results of the probabilities.

I am going to pause there and see if I cannot get somebodies interest with this observation? Although I do have a good deal more to say on the subject.

Steven Andresen