Alternative Models of Reality

Akinbo,

Intelligent beings observing human evolution will also do so, to stop humanity destroying itself.

I considered 2020 a reasonable target date, but that may be optimistic as there's no guarantee it's achievable. Intellectual evolution can seem to work in fits and starts.

One fascinating thing we have learned is that there's no rushing it. You can lead a horse to water...

Peter

Here are poetries for a humble Review request ,and where as, and without ado : then

from the wild, circus of blatantly-forgotten-advocacy and wistful-proto- abstract representation, . . . Notice for now and/or take in: the naïve visual- philosophic- material as presented by,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0091v7.pdf

and since it is natural , at such out-of- place introductions to procrastinate-, and plainly, just ask why I have addressed for your entertainment ,also a few, personal motivations for such instinctual delay ...

First of all I couldnt possibly answer that myself ; so regardless then .. , would such, arrive from :: ? uninvited urges, to make sense of things, tend in .. Apparent commonality and specious weakness to troll ego, into thoughts, or simply-another-tiny-Insight via the lights of fires long forgotten, or to futures,were they should never arrive;Creating then, satiation and an impulsive cultural cliffing to the untried, or more so, an overall ingrained-frozen-tribal hierarchical rant and warning to safety !

hmm do you already know enough ..? , it would be understandably sad , but maybe ,

You ,never the less, could have simply asked, what is this enclosed [thing],about well I remember when it started, long ago it was about a forbidded, varied illusion of mathematic Time. But for the present, I have grown more humble.and would leave such mystic interpretations to you,as mostly now: its left as an easily demonstrated standard construction and then pre-existent [interior-structure] for the real-numbers;and so ,is , in a sense .. uninterpreted ..hmm

or maybe one could have asked, what do you want from me Impudently and initially, if so, here finally, I would believe, it must be obvious :: if you would be so kind, to take some time, to read it or skim over it , and afterwards perhaps maybe [process this message forward] ; why

. . . . . . . . .

Ive honestly begun to wonder how these structural-thoughts are viewed from an other perspective,as in most of the world, such infinitesimal -or- pointed-set-conversations are curiously stunted or found in the-uncharted references of silence. So maybe you, or again then you might know someone, who could suspect and/or be the right individual to be interested in, or respond with augmenting constructive input or fathom some co-essence, to such instant-like terminal-things and additionally then, I feel that.. this work might then ,find, some unbiased appropriate review,maybe on: arxiv.org (but it seems, I need to woo, an endorsement for that..also-then-painfully-a-hint),

* Lastly, I have looked long and hard for previous work, which by a classic approach, completes the interior of [the Real-number-system] ; since it is such an obvious ,and small step, and could vastly reduce the necessary work as presented or then ,as such, would simply speed and improve the process (by evolutions in at-a-distance like-kind collabortion) . Where hopefully

lucky in return, you may have also gained ,here, some interesting experience, an awareness; and a few beginnings to an- apparent and yet easily passed-over treasure: ie. maths of the moment.

first though the associated work

http://vixra.org/pdf/1308.0091v7.pdf

again really:: I look forward to any-and-all of your input on this outlook, where in the likely and prosaic futures of what seems to me as a yet strange and thoroughly endless complete silence of response, of course, and then sincerely , I hope all remains well for you. -pw

A Tale of Two Boxes

Dear All,

Given two boxes A and B, with A containing a piece of cake and a shiny lamp and B containing nothing, i.e. no matter of any kind whether baryonic or non-baryonic (see attachment). If in a hypothetical experiment, knobs are attached to Box A capable of turning on/off the fundamental forces, i.e. electromagnetic, gravitational and strong, by neutralizing the properties of charge, mass, color and flavor, what can we observe?

First we turn off charge. The cake breaks up into a soup of electrically neutral particles and the cake loses its appearance, brown colour and sugary sweet taste. Same with the lamp. The only structures possible will be held together by strong and gravitational forces. Next we turn off color and flavor, then even the quarks break up into a soup of particles with only mass, gravity being the only interaction between them. By now both boxes will be transparent and there will be nothing shining anymore in Box A, luminousity being dependent on electromagnetism.

Question: How are we to differentiate Box A from Box B? We know however that Box A contains matter, but it has become non-luminous (i.e. dark).

A first suggestion is to weigh the two boxes if this is practicable. This will differentiate Box A from Box B.

A second suggestion is to pass a beam of light from one side to the other and calculate the light velocity. Velocity of light will be lower in Box A than Box B.

Are there any other suggestions? Such suggestions may be useful for those searching for Dark Matter in underground tunnels, whereas it may well be overground and "seen" if looked for the right way in surface experiments.Attachment #1: A_TALE_OF_TWO_BOXES.doc

Dear FQXi Friends,

Thanks for starting this thread! I am a Zen monk, not a scientist, but I decided to see what kind of Theory of Everything (ToE) might take shape if I applied the philosophical tenants of a particular form of Zen Buddhism (Tathagata Zen) to questions concerning the relationship between quantum and classical levels of reality and how they might relate to objective consciousness. In contrast to our western objectively-based model, the Zen approach is to try to understand everything from its own, unique, first-person perspective. I know that what I am presenting is, more or less, an aesthetic speculation partially based on a non-scientist's very incomplete knowledge of physics, but I do believe that the exercise has yielded some interesting and quite beautiful descriptions of Reality. What finally took shape is something that might be described as a kind of "impressionistic" ToE. That is, rather than focusing on exact details of particular physical processes (although some examples are provided) what I've tried to do (using the tenants of Zen) is to broadly identify and present the process of _change_ itself as a single, unifying, cosmic principle that is evident within all physical processes.

Putting the pieces of this theory together has taken me over 20 years and it is still a work-in-progress, but one of the hardest parts of the whole adventure has been getting any constructive feedback along the way. Although it has been a wonderful learning experience just as a personal exercise, I am really hoping that others might read it through and feel free to offer any reflections, criticisms, and/or suggestions.

Here is the link:

zentheory.blogspot.co.at.

Thank you very much and I hope you enjoy the read!

Kigen

I discovered serious errors in the process of developing and establishing Einstein's Time Dilation Theory. Please review the report in the attachment or at: http://www.einsteinerrs.com

Your comment, input, advice will be greatly appreciated.

Dieu LeAttachment #1: Einsteins_errors-_FQXi.pdf

Interesting and hilarious...

"...according to the theory, when a car is moving, time slows down inside that car. When it reaches the speed of light, time stops"

Does the car stop moving when the time inside it stops?

What you wrote is not entirely new only that the establishment refuses to change its position on the theory for some strange reason.

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Thank you for your comment.

The establishment refuses to change its position because the author of this theory is Albert Einstein.

Dieu

A physically correct definition

for Einstein's Theory of GRAVITY

This theory supposes to guide scientists/physicists to quickly understand the structure and the operation of the universe, revealing many secrets, busting many myths. But, instead, it has provided few positive results, and inspired numerous absurd theories, because its definition is misleading.

It transformed Einstein's thinking, observations, and conclusions into an absurd statement that makes no physical sense.Attachment #1: GRAVITY-_FQXi.pdf

Dieu Le,

You have some interesting perspectives and in my view some misconceptions when you say Space is an absolute emptiness, a nothing, which is why you are of the opinion that space cannot be disturbed. To appreciate part of my view point see my 2013 essay

Akinbo

Dieu Tat Le,

I read your essay and was impressed with the final two statements. I totally agree with what you're saying. Why didn't Newton simply propose the spinning Archimedes screw as a wave/particle able to create the force of gravity between two objects in empty space??

Alan

Dieu,

I'm been trying for 10 years to find someone like you! We think the same. It's obvious to us that it's the mathematics without a substantial matter mechanism which is the problem. I'm serious about the spinning helical wave/particle as a force carrier. If the helix is spinning twice as fast as it's moving, then it can exert a force of attraction. If this same type of helical wave/particle was created at the beginning, then it could travel around a wraparound universe to become a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy.

I have a simplistic essay which tries to paint a picture of this build up of structure before the big bang. Note that these structures could build up a pressure of attraction and crash into one another rather than travelling around a 4D universe as I state initially. See here Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die?

Together we can crack this, I'm sure

Alan

Alan,

Food for thought. "I'm serious about the spinning helical wave/particle as a force carrier. If the helix is spinning twice as fast as it's moving,...".

Can something without parts spin? Can a point, not having a centre part and a peripheral part spin?

When something spins, in respect to what? Can a solitary body without reference to another body experience spin and if it can, how can the direction of spin be determined or referenced? Can a solitary something move without reference to some other object? If it can how is the direction to be determined in order to claim it is 'spinning twice as fast as it is moving'.

Imagine a rigid solitary ball in space, can it rotate? And if it does how can we know this since the centre of the sphere and its surface remain at fixed distance to each other. In other words is 'motion' absolute or relative?

Akinbo

Akinbo,

It's just common sense. An object radiates helical wave/particles at a speed half the rate of it's spin, so able to induce a force of attraction when interacting with the matter of a second object. You have a different worldview, so you're never going to agree with us. You've made your case for an ether-like theory, so please let Dieu and I contemplate the alternative 'particle exchange in empty space' model.

Your questions aren't helping. Please don't post any more queries about this hypothesis.

Kind regards,

Alan

Alan, if the only response you have is that "It's just common sense" when the whole world knows that common sense is not common I will not direct my queries to you. But since you are not the forum administrator I reserve the right to direct my queries to others who may be more receptive and are ready to rebut any arguments against their preferred hypothesis.

Akinbo

I think time itself is only metaphysical and stays the same, whereas the physical EVIDENCE of an emission somewhere which was 1 second long, can be tampered with as much as you please as you're only tampering with the 'evidence', not the original fact.

http://www.ipracticemath.com/

Alice,

"the EVIDENCE of an emission can be changed." Brilliant! But then I would say that as I've been trying to get that message and it's implications across for years (see my essays etc). Great to have an ally.

The implications are not fatal to Relativity, indeed they render the postulates logical. But a spatial constraint is put on the current 'interpretation', resulting in a 'discrete field' model (infinitely many inertial systems in relative motion). If you are standing beside me but then decide to move towards a light source, you DO change the speed of the light your brain measures against time, but not until it reaches your own very local inertial system! (in that case less than 1 micron from the surface of your eye lens, which is Maxwell's near/far field TZ). In the case of the sun it's ~100AU's (the heliopause).

But it seems that convincing those blindly dedicated to SR that length contraction and time dilation are simply Doppler shifts may take as long as the last revolution took Copernicus!

Onwards and upwards. Best of luck.

Peter

Oh my Dieu!

There's evidence of a build up of structure and subsequent implosion before the big bang:

Scientists Find Imprint of Universe That Existed Before the Big Bang

The new work comes from the Tachyonic Retrospective Inferences of Cosmologically Extrapolated Preconditions, or TRICEP, imager. The team managed to discern even fainter swirls, called AF modes: traces of deflatons (pronounced DEF-luh-tons) that brought the previous incarnation of our universe crashing down. "Just imagine a helium balloon shrinking over time as the gas escapes," says TRICEP spokesman Doug Neidermeyer, a cosmologist at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York. "Now imagine a universe-sized helium balloon deflating in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a quadrillionth of a second. Not so easy to imagine, is it?"

Shucks! It's an April Fool's article apparently. Maybe it will turnout to predict future findings.

Alice,

I agree with Peter, it's brilliant remark. I made change in one paragraph of my essay, adding this statement. Hope you don't mind.

"But physicists and scientists should have recognized that time has no role in the process of creating Gravity. (... time itself is only metaphysical and stays the same, whereas the physical EVIDENCE of an emission somewhere which was 1 second long, can be tampered with as much as you please as you're only tampering with the 'evidence', not the original fact - Alice Lewis.) As of today, I admit that picturing a "curvature of time" still escapes my wildest imagination."

Thanks,

Dieu