Mathematics, Physics and Nature by Kimmo Rouvari

Dear Kimmo Rouvari,

Enjoyed your essay and the quote that caught my eye "Most likely there is a layer, or perhaps many layers, under it. Layer underneath QM might include for example realism and point like particles could be concrete, physical, spinning spherical objects."

We share a common background as software architects, perhaps that's why I enjoyed the read. My thoughts always see a computer program running that provides the model of what is being discussed. Your conclusion "TOEBI gives an alternative description of Nature and the root level explanation why mathematics and physics are so linked to each other in so many levels." is different then mine, but has a number of common goals and conclusions.

I take a much more specific look at particles of the standard model and what a model of each particle would have to entail. Hope you get a chance to have a look and offer some comments.

Regards and in my opinion, your essay deserves a good rating.

Ed Unverricht

Kimmo,

Quite interesting concepts. How does a sea of FTEPs figure in the assembly of atoms bonding into molecules and cells in the classical world?

Our essays obviously don't afford that space to describe it.

Jim

Dear Mr. Rouvari,

You wrote: "We haven't discovered the True Nature yet."

Please behold the true nature of the real Universe. Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Dear Mr. Rouvari,

I did nor rate your essay yet.

I know that Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract apace/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of abstract NOTHING. I am posting my theorem of unified reality in the hope that it will be understood and accepted by this august body.

Joe

Kimmo,

A ToE is very ambitious. I am a believer in an Aether. To me, the question is simply what properties must an Aether posses in order for reality to be as it is observed.

I have received many rejections for papers ... usually they are just the standard crackpot letter ... no surprise. Occasionally, the editor will actually include a helpful comment. The position taken by science is very straight-forward. Can you explain something that was previously not understood? Can you make a prediction that can be falsified? What does the idea add that science does not already have. Bear in mind that a new idea must also satisfy everything that is already known. It is very difficult!!!

If the answer to any of these is weak then why should anyone consider the idea? I don't fault the gate-keepers for this. They must be very careful in guarding their credibility.

Having said all that, your idea is interesting (to me at least). But how do you account for the mass ratio between the proton and the electron if you think a proton is composed of three electrons? BTW, the mp/me mass ratio is ~1836.15. Also, keep in mind that spin and charge are conserved. Of course, you probably handle that with a combination of an electron and a positron.

Stick with it.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Dear Kimmo,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Kimmo,

If you have not already done so, please take a look at my essay. There is still a week or so left to vote if you so desire.

Thanks,

Gary Simpson

Kimmo,

Shark time, so I am revisiting essays I've read to assure I've rated them. I find that I did not rate yours so I am rectifying. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345

Jim