Dear Jacek, I'm so sorry. Thanks for kindly correcting my false assumption! On Day 1 I saw your comment and just one score of 3. My mistake - it had not occurred to me that someone else (who had NOT commented) was the #3 culprit.

Like you I have held back on scoring ANY papers - so, rest assured, I was NOT the #1 scorer for your paper. Also, like you, I too got a score of 1 from some unknown source. (Oddly enough, when I got that score of 1, I "knew" I sufficiently challenged someone of the "herd mentality" (aka mainstream consensus) that they were scared - had they left a comment I'd know otherwise. I kind'a started hoping I'd lots of 1's and 8's - 9's and only few between. Eventually, of course, I'd like to win everyone over.

Even with my limited understanding about your unique perspective I have a MUCH higher minimal score in mind. That is why I've invested so much time in hopes to bridge the gaps between your approach to cosmology and mine. I'm fascinated by the number of points we are in agreement, but at a loss as to how to connect our "parallel universes". ;-)

As for scoring papers, my goal is to read/study a dozen or more essays to grasp them sufficiently to see which ones enable/empower me/us to make rapid strides towards a True Understanding of root causes. Only then would I have a frame-of-reference (curve?) on which to score papers. For me an essay should be more than just "interesting" and "relevant" to the contest theme of identifying the extent to which math & physics fit like hand-n-glove vs. when they do not. Geometry is the key to "connecting" math & physics, and infinities created by dividing by 0 is when math does not fit - I believe EVERYTHING in physical reality has a specific non-zero size, and all wave-functions are essentially hollow; being filled with only the elastic fluid of the Space-Time Medium.

Highest regards, respectfully your new friend,

John

P.S. I will be studying your references.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #9

Dear John, the apology fully accepted.

For me, at the moment, the most important is to convince physicists that matter and interactions are nothing more than the elastic space-time medium dynamic geometry. There will be no scientific grants without that strong conviction. That is the reason I take part in the contest. I do not believe I could win.

In the details we can disagree but this is the question of research as the example I gave you (Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga) and experiments.

As far, I have studied more than 30 essays and maybe 10 is really inspiring and interesting. In some cases I will apply a compensating evaluation 10 (sometimes even though the essay does not deserve so much) because that unfair voting cases as yours and mine.

Best regards

Jacek

Gary D. Simpson! Thanks so much for your astute reading of my essay and your kind, insightful & encouraging comments.

"This is a very interesting essay with many novel insights."

For years now I have quietly pondered cosmological ideas. I'm thankful to FQxI for sponsoring this essay contest; it has helped me focus on getting ideas out of my head onto paper. The whole exercise has brought forth a conceptualization of Quantum Gravity (page 6) that is SO clear now that I'm certain it's on the right track.

"The many illustrations add a lot of flavor also. Physics could really use an artist right now."

Thanks for noticing. I wish you were on the "How things Happen" RFQ Selection Committee. I had hoped that this essay would spring board me into a project to create illustrations/animations/simulations of quantum phenomena, including Quantum Gravity. (Check out www.bugman123.com, I wanted to team up with Paul Nylander on that project. Oh well, too bad my proposal was turned down.)

"There was enough material here for half a dozen more detailed essays."

Solving this system has been like solving a set of simultaneous equations - at some point I had to grasp all 3 Relativity Theories and probabilistic nature of quantum wave mechanics. That's also why I left a link to my website to expound upon the many facets of the material.

(See http://MysteriesOfTheUniverse.info/UnifyingQuantumGravity+EM.htm )

"I can almost imagine what Paul Dirac would be like on a sugar rush."

For 1 full month I put "life" on hold while I pushed myself to mental exhaustion 2-3 times a day. Squeezing years of ideas into 10.75 pages, I then spent a week trimming/squeezing to less than 25k characters - thus creating the Dirac on a Sugar Rush Effect (DSRE). During that time Quantum Gravity became clearer, yet how to clearly describe exponential time perceptions using a logarithmical slowing clock still eluded me. As important as it was to strive for perfection, mental fatigue left a few fixable flaws.

Page 1: Question 3's Solution would read more accurately as: Our SI values for Planck-(length, time, mass) are covariant, maybe more. (It was too early in the text to introduce such a delicate subject. The problem being that if Max Planck had defined Planck-mass in terms of Planck-mass per Planck-time. -then during Planck/Einstein conversations Quantum Gravity could have been REALIZED 100 years ago!)

Page 6: Equation (12) needs either a "1/" in front, or flip the right fraction upside down.

"You should read the essay by Colin Walker. He discusses tired light."

I like Colin Walker's perspective it parallels mine in several key aspects: what he calls tired light energy loss, I call Cosmological redshift -- effectively being a measure of time dilation. I'd like to try translating some of his math into my Space~Time framework. My assertion that we need to scale clock-rates along with space in FLRW-metric means that I/we have to rethink a lot of other math. Is "Hubble's Constant" constant? I don't know yet how to this will all come together, but my initial impressions are that our approaches could meet somewhere in the middle -- each contributing important pieces to this Cosmic Puzzle.

John,

You are most welcome. Your effort shows. Don't get discouraged about the voting and scores and such. Anything that deviates from what the mainstream believes gets voted down. Early in the voting, I got hit with three 1's and a 2. The key is to interact with other authors and get enough positive votes to over come the haters. For whatever it's worth to you, you were at the top of the rankings for about 30 minutes until someone voted you down ... Sorry, I only get one vote.

If you are having a hard time conceptualizing complex time, take a look at my essay. Near the end, I present a variation of the Lorentz Transform that defines complex time. I have almost worked the math to a point where I can use Geometric Algebra and motion to explain gravity.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

15 days later

Dear John,

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

7 days later

John,

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

4 days later

Dear John,

I read your comment at Studencki and decided to carefully read your essay. For the most part I agree with your attitudes. The overall impression (text, images, formulas, attitudes, explanations ...) that you deserve much better score than it is currently. Best regards,

Branko

Dr. Wsol,

This paper is impressive both in breadth and how many BIG questions you address. I'm surprised how so much of your math spans quantum amounts and links them to both the physics of Newton and Einstein relativity - AND you suggest even a 3rd relativity theory!

The perspective of the Cosmic Onion is really eye-opening. It makes more sense now how the entire universe expands within this "holographic" spherical area where all the universes before are contained within the one we are now existing in. All space-time relationships are caused by the direct connection of time and space expansion.

Furthermore, I think I get your Dark Energy explanation: it's NOT that the universe is speeding up; but it is because (as the universe gets bigger) we ourselves expand and move relatively slowly compared to how fast the past is moving. That makes more sense - that action at extreme distances is pushing the galaxies apart. If this bears further scrutiny, your theory will be one to go down in history as revolutionary. Your view of time (correcting your proposed flaw in the Freidman equation) supercedes Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" and requests a re-assessment of many decades of accepted cosmological theories.

As for quantum gravity (math isn't my great strength,) but as you describe the "probabilistic nature" of the Planck constant increments happening at regular intervals - quantum-like - now that makes sense - making a depression in time which then effectively creates gravity.

I look forward to seeing more of your work!

--Tim

Dear John Wsol,

Since I am a visual thinker, the Cosmic Onion model of space-time expansion really speaks to me. It creates a map to help me wrap my mind around how this all works together.

I love the third theory of relativity where time is a function of space expansion and is ever expanding along with it.

You mention that one implication of this model is "look back curves". I find this especially intriguing.

I am well pleased to see how many blanks you successfully bridge in what has been other "understandings" of the cosmos up to this point. Further, I find it refreshing that you communicate it all in terms that someone like me can get without being a career mathematician. If anyone manages to shoot down the mathematical agreement you have presented here I would be rather stunned.

Thank you,

-Randall

a month later

Dear John,

Sorry for the delay in replying but I have been very busy lately.

Thank you for your message on my thread.

I had a look at your essay and a bit at your website.

I am very pleased to see that you also think that everything is expanding (time included). As you say, our models have some good similarities. The big difference is that yours is 4D and mine essentially 2D/3D. Also, in my model, past/present/future co-exist, you don't seem to include that in your model. Do you have any views on that topic ?

I see that you worked with computers and databases, what do you think of my purely "information based" approach ?

I am 100% convinced that we are correct about time expanding with space, I wish that the mainstream will take a serious look at our models one day but I don't have much hope, it is too unconventional.

All the best,

Patrick Tonin

PS: the formula you put in my thread did not come out properly, can you send it to me separately ?

    Yes, Patrick, Although I introduce the idea of the Now-Manifold as expanding within the Cosmic Onion, its existence is spread across time. (Thus, Einstein's often misunderstood statement that "The distinction between the past, present, & future is a stubbornly persistent illusion." From an eternal perspective the whole span of time exists simultaneously.

    However, physically, we seem to all be caught up in the flow-of-Now -- the local rate that time proceeds forward. This tells me that time MUST be treated differently from spatial dimensions. Thus I believe it is not proper think of time as being "shared" with one of the spatial dimensions. Physically, we exist in 3-space PLUS one-time. (Above, and beyond that I consider higher dimensions as having and interface with physical reality: dimensions of mind, soul and spirit.

    As for pattern searching here is one I found back on 28-Jan-2013:

    [math]\underline{22.99859}034 = \frac{27}{\sqrt[3]\phi} \approx \alpha^7 \left( \frac {m_p}{m_e}\right)^5 [/math]

    Compare this to the 2007 & 2010 CODATA values of 22.99859141 and 22.99859213 (This has an uncertainty of less than 4.6x10-8)

    -- Cosmologically yours,

    -- John Wsol

    Write a Reply...