Criticisms from some physicists suggest that they misunderstand my analysis of the Koide formula. For me, the point is NOT that the Koide formula predicts some particular range of values for lepton masses -- the WHOLE POINT is that square-root(mass) has some kind of profound meaning in terms of physics. Conventional wisdom says that there exists a Planck time and a Planck length. Does there exist a Wolfram time and a Wolfram length? In other words, it is true that the wavelengths of photons and gravitons can be arbitrary long or is it true that there exists a maximum wavelength in the physical universe? How do physicists know the answer to the previous question? If there is a maximum length in the physical universe, then should there be a modification of Einstein's field equations (even after quantum averaging)?

According to Einstein's field equations and string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, our universe expands forever. What is the explanation for the space roar? Does the Koide formula suggest that there might be a modification of Einstein's field equations? Consider Einstein's field equations: R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu) -- what might be wrong? Consider the possible correction R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R * (1 - (R(min) / R)^2)^(1/2) = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu), if R(min) = 0 then Einstein's field equations are recovered.

EINSTEIN'S "THE MEANING OF RELATIVITY", 5TH EDITION, PAGES 83 AND 84

[edit note: for page 83, all except last paragraph of page 83 deleted]

If there is an analogue of Poisson's equation in the general theory of relativity, then this equation must be a tensor equation for the tensor g(mu,nu) of the gravitational potential; the energy tensor of matter must appear on the right-hand side of this equation. On the left-hand side of the equation there must be a differential tensor in the g(mu,nu). It is completely determined by the following three conditions:

1. It may contain no differential coefficients of the g(mu,nu) higher than the second.

2. It must be linear in these second differential coefficients.

3. Its divergence must vanish identically.

The first two of these conditions are naturally taken from Poisson's equation. Since it may be proved mathematically that all such differential tensors can be formed algebraically (i.e. without differentiation) from Riemann's tensor, our tensor must have the form

R(mu,nu) + a g(mu,nu) R

in which R(mu,nu) and R are defined by (88) and (89) [edit note: see page 77]. Further, it may be proved that the third condition requires a to have the value - 1/2 . For the law of the gravitational field we therefore get the equation

(96) R(mu,nu) - (1/2) g(mu,nu) R = - κ * T(mu,nu) .

Equation (95) [edit note: see deleted part of page 83] is a consequence of this equation. κ denotes a constant, which is connected with the Newtonian gravitational constant.

CRITICISM OF EINSTEIN'S ASSUMPTION for R

How do physicists know that there is not some law of nature that forces R ≥ R(min), always and everywhere? The Koide formula suggests that square-root(mass-energy) might somehow be construed as area. If so, the entire universe might undergo an instantaneous (i.e. one Planck time interval) collapse. If the universe collapses when the average temperature of the universe gets too cold, then Einstein was wrong. Therefore, there might be some modification involving R that changes the underlying physics basis for eternal cosmological expansion. Can physicists cite empirical evidence that proves that the preceding speculation is wrong? Theorists might cite theoretical reasons why the proposed modification is wrong, but CAN THEY CITE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WHICH CLEARLY DISCONFIRMS THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION?

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9129 "Can the Laws of Physics be Unified?"

https://www.quora.com/What-was-Lubos-Motls-greatest-contribution-to-physics

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-hope-of-reformulating-String-Theory-without-supersymmetry

https://www.quora.com/Does-string-theory-require-supersymmetry-Why

It seems to me that I have not done a good job of explaining my viewpoint to string theorists and to critics of string theory.

First of all, who do I think are the 2 best critics of string theory: Answer: Burton Richter & Sheldon Glashow. What is my thinking on the "String Wars"? Google "witten magic mystery and matrix". Consider 5 questions:

1. Is string theory the "only game in town" for unifying quantum field theory and general relativity? I say yes. 2. Does string theory predict general relativity theory? I say yes. 3. Does string theory predict quantum field theory? I say yes. 4. Does string theory predict nonabelian gauge symmetry? I say yes. Does string theory predict supersymmetry? I say that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis predicts supersymmetry but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis predicts no supersymmetry, i.e. no superpartners at all. What do I say is wrong with the thinking of string theorists? String theorists seem to think that nature is smooth, differential, geometric, and higher dimensional in terms of spatial dimensions. I suggest that their thinking is a kind of half-truth. I suggest that there are precisely 64 basic particles. In terms of the interior of the multiverse, these 64 different particles by means of their independent motions create 64 dimensions of virtual spacetime. Each matter particle has 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, and 1 dimension of quantum spin in the matter-quantum-spin-dimension. Each antimatter particle has 3 dimensions of linear momentum, 3 dimensions of angular momentum, and 1 dimension of antimatter-quantum-spin-dimension. Altogether, the motions of the particles create a 72-ball of virtual particle motion. This 72-ball somehow allows the monster group and the 6 pariah groups to guide string vibrations on 3 copies of the Leech lattice. This set-up somehow creates a mathematical bridge between the Fredkin-Wolfram network and and an approximation to string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis. In order for string theory with the finite nature hypothesis to work it is necessary for string theory with the infinite nature to "almost work". The most important insight is that string theory the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND, while string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry. I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology and that the empirical successes of MOND imply that at least 1 of Newton's 3 laws of motion are wrong. Consider (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3rd law), where + means true and - means false. Milgrom thinks that the basic problem is with the 2nd law, but I think that the basic problem is with the 3rd law. By introducing a nonzero dark-matter-compensation constant, the result is the mathematically simplest modification of Einstein's field equations. An easy scaling argument then allows the approximate recovery of MOND in the Newtonian approximation. I suggest that Newton and Einstein wrongly assumed that gravitational energy is conserved. I suggest that some gravitons can escape from the boundary of the multiverse (where all direct measurement occurs) into the interior of the multiverse (which has immense "Fredkin heat"). By making 3 different modifications to Einstein's field equations it might be possible to provide physical justifications for Milgrom's MOND, the Koide formula, and Lestone's heuristic string theory. These 3 modifications might provide a new starting point for quantum gravity. Am I completely wrong? Maybe so.

David,

Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND( could offer a viable explanation. Physicists are found of inventing something new rather than modifying the old -- makes one think of obsolescence. My essay does get into a speculation about DM created by the multitudinous forces of normal matter and motion. I'll have to follow the discussion of MOND more.

Check mine out and see what you think.

Jim

Is Bell's theorem true? Joseph Polchinski wrote, "The second superstring revolution began in 1995. Over a period four years, we discovered dualities of quantum field theories, dualities of string theories, duality between quantum field theories and string theories (that is, AdS/CFT), D-branes, Matrix theory, and quantitative understanding of black hole entropy."

https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.06145 "Why trust a theory? Some further remarks (part 1)" by J. Polchinski

Consider 4 hypotheses. Hypothesis 1. By using clever D-brane adjustments, string theorists can provide mathematical models of any plausible or implausible physics -- even including miracles and cartoon physics. Hypothesis 2. The Copenhagen Interpretation is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable because it does not rule out the string landscape. 3. Bell's theorem is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable because it does not rule out the string landscape. 4. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis can explain Milgrom's MOND but in a mathematically awkward way, such as by MOND-chameleon particles or something else. Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? The empirical successes of MOND imply that at least 1 of Newton's 3 laws of motion is wrong. Consider (± 1st law, ± 2nd law, ± 3 law), where + means true and - means false. My guess is that the 4 most plausible possibilities are: (1) a Verlinde-type in which gravity is emergent and all of the 3 laws fail at the origin of the emergence; (2) a Bekenstein-type theory in which the 2d law fails but the 3rd law is true; (3) a string landscape theory in which all of the 3 laws are true but MOND-compatible, dark matter particles exist; (4) dark-matter-compensation-constant modification of Einstein's field equations. Am I correct on Milgrom's MOND, the Koide formula, and Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections?

Is there some way that Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might be justified in terms of the string landscape? In the string landscape, let us assume that there is a 10-dimensional ultra-hot interstitium among alternate universes and that, within the string landscape, alternate universes exchange virtual energy if and only if they have "almost exactly" the same virtual vacua. Furthermore let us assume that our own universe is very close to the multiverse average in terms of its free parameters in the Standard Model. Then it might be possible to hide Lestone's imaginary particles with virtual cross sections in the multiverse interstitium of the string landscape. The ultra-hot interstitium might consist entirely of virtual energy in which there are "bubbles" consisting of 2-spheres with 3 vibrating strings confined to the surface of each 2-sphere. The alternate universes might have "point-paricle" leptons that exchange virtual photons with nearby "bubbles" in the interstitium. Approximate curling up of 9 spatial dimensions might allow Lestone's speculative intuitions to have an approximate model in 4-dimensional spacetime. Could the preceding scenario work?

Lestone has introduced a highly speculative approach to estimating the fine structure constant in terms of theory. Lestone wrote,

"Introduction to my idea

Before Hawking's work (and others) black-holes were believed to be point objects with only mass, spin, and charge. This is why Einstein (1930s) and others have previously considered the possibility that fundamental particles (like leptons) are quantum micro black holes. Black holes are now believed to have a temperature, entropy, and thus many internal degrees of freedom. Individual black holes are objects amenable to statistical mechanics.

My heretical statement

If black holes (once thought to be point objects) are amenable to statistical mechanics, then why not fundamental particles like leptons? (1988)

Introduction to my idea continued

I consider the possibility of a very strange "unknown" imaginary class of particles, with several unique (bizarre) properties including

(1) My particles have a very high temperature(s).

(2) Despite having a very high temperature, my imaginary particles can not change their rest mass upon the emission of electromagnetic energy. Using known physics my imaginary particles (if isolated) can not emit any "real" photons".

(3) However, I consider the possibility that my imaginary particles can emit and absorb unphysical L=0 "virtual" photons via the time-energy uncertainty principle.

(4) The emission and absorption is controlled by statistical arguments involving their classical temperature and possibly other effective temperatures.

..." http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-16-22121 J. P. Lestone, "Possible path for the calculation of the fine structure constant", Los Alamos Report LA-UR-16-22121, April 2016, Los Alamos National Laboratory

MY GUESS is that there might be a plausible way of justifying (1)-(4) in terms of string theory with the string landscape. Assume a string landscape in which all the alternate universes have Standard Model free parameters that are very close to each other. If there is (in the string landscape) an extremely hot interstitium which is 10-dimensional and super-hot with respect to all the cooler alternate universes, and ALSO most of the virtual energy close to each alternate universe is slightly super-hot but cool enough that it is ALMOST conventional in terms of 4-dimensional spacetime, then it seems to me that (1)-(4) might be justifiable.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0333.pdf "String Theory" by David Tong, 2012

http://www-hep.physics.uiowa.edu/~vincent/courses/29276/Vecchia.pdf "The Birth of String Theory" by P. di Vecchia, Lect. Notes Phys., 737, 59-118 (2008)

http://www.sns.ias.edu/witten

"... a proper theoretical framework for the extra term in the uncertainty relation has not yet emerged ..." p. 29 in reference to equation (9) of "Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime" by Edward Witten

http://www.sns.ias.edu/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Reflections(3).pdf

http://www.superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9129 "Can the Laws of Physics be Unified?"

https://www.quora.com/What-was-Lubos-Motls-greatest-contribution-to-physics

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-hope-of-reformulating-String-Theory-without-supersymmetry

https://www.quora.com/Does-string-theory-require-supersymmetry-Why

In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, the idea is to say that the equivalence principle is 100% true but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle needs to be modified to include both hbar and alpha-prime. In string theory with the finite nature hypothesis, the idea is to say that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is 100% true but the equivalence principle is completely false for both dark energy and dark matter, i.e., dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy, while dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. According to Fredkin, nature contains neither infinities nor infinitesimals. If t is the time parameter and Fredkin is correct, then our universe does not expand forever because t cannot be arbitrarily large -- thus a Koide-type modification to Einstein's field equations is needed. If Fredkin is correct then energy-density cannot be arbitrarily large and there needs to be a corresponding modification to Einstein's field equations in order to limit the energy-density.

Google "kroupa dark matter" for problems that Kroupa and other astrophysics have identified concerning theories of dark matter particles that obey Newtonian-Einsteinan dynamics. It seems to me that there might be MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration. I have conjectured the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Is the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis wrong? Can string theory predict both supersymmetry and MOND-chameleon particles? Suppose that there are two Higgs fields: one Higgs field for ordinary matter and another Higgs field (the MOND-chameleon-Higgs field) for the superpartners of the ordinary particles. Does M-theory rule out a MOND-chameleon-Higgs field? The MOND-chameleon-Higgs field might have some bizarre, unknown correlation with Einstein's curvature scalar R allowing some superpartners to act as MOND-chameleon particles.

Is it possible that Milgrom's acceleration law is wrong? No, because Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski have elaborated too much empirical evidence in its favor. There are only 2 possibilities: (1) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is 100% correct but appears to be significantly wrong for some unknown reason. (2) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational really is slightly wrong. How might alternative (1) be a physical reality in terms of string theory and supersymmetry?

"I think few people appreciate that the main difficulty for DM is that the host of regularities pointed out by MOND, if taken as just a summary of how DM behaves and interacts with normal matter, suggests that these two matter components are coupled and correlated very strongly in many ways." -- M. Milgrom

"Dark-Matter Heretic", interview of Mordehai Milgrom by Michael Szpir, Jan-Feb 2003, American Scientist

Can string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and with supersymmetry explain MOND? I think that the answer is 'yes', but the explanation is mathematically awkward. Assume that MOND-chameleon particles exist. These hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration. Assume that some of the superpartners of ordinary particles can yield WIMPs that are also MOND-chameleon particles. How might such WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles mimic a violation of the conservation of gravitational energy? In the standard form of Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 dark-matter-compensation-function, where this function depends upon unknown parameters. In the Newtonian approximation to Einstein's field equations, chop up gravitational acceleration into zones where the gravitational acceleration is approximately constant. If the dark-matter-compensation-function is approximately constant in the approximation range where MOND applies, then we get an approximation to MOND. Also, the false assumption that the WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles DO NOT have variable effective mass would lead to the false impression that the "dark-matter-compensation-function" is REAL. However, the "dark-matter-compensation-function would be an invalid assumption which IS APPARENTLY CORRECT under the false assumption made concerning the WIMP-MOND-chameleon particles (the false assumption being that these hypothetical particles DO NOT have variable effective mass). How might MOND-chameleon particles be explained? Some of the superpartners of ordinary particles might have a weird, unknown correlation with Einstein's curvature scalar R. Such a weird correlation might arise from a D-brane charge that shows its effects upon MOND-chameleon particles but not other particles. The weird correlation might arise from a Higgs-MOND-chamelon field -- in other words, there might be two Higgs fields -- one that has been discovered and an undiscovered Higgs-MOND-chameleon-field that interacts only with MOND-chameleon particles.

Hi David,

You do go on and on....Not that this is not an interesting shotgun approach to what is the most interesting stuff. And I like it a lot. Thus my boosting your score. Please allow me to add a pellet to your shotgun blast.

I have a theory that is related to MOND and comes to the conclusion that Newtonian gravity and a modified idea of what constitutes a graviton can explain curved space-time and dark energy-dark matter (and not directly contradict GR). Yah, Yah, me and every crackpot on the planet. But, do check out my website, and the paper "A Quantum Mechanical View of the Precession of Mercury's Orbit".

e-mail me at don.limuti@gmail.com and I'll forward a copy.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

    Consider 2 ideas: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) Any empirically valid explanation of dark matter should derive MOND.

    Pavel Kroupa - The vast polar structures around the Milky Way and Andromeda, YouTube, 2013

    Consider 5 conjectures: (1) Time exists because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group. (2) Space exists because 3^20 divides the order of the monster group. (3) Witten's 11-dimensional model is essential for understanding the physical reason that 11^2 divides the order of the monster group. (4) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups. (5) If the Gravity Probe science team is correct about the malfunction of their 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes then David Brown is a crackpot.

    Should string theorists consider the following possibility? String theory might consist of 2 different forms of strings: ordinary strings and MOND-chameleon strings. The MOND-chameleon strings might be involved in maintaining the structure of the string landscape and might have superpositions among alternate universes.

    Hi David,

    I enjoyed your essay. I appreciate that you seem to have a great reverence for questions, as opposed to just answers:)

    If you're interested in Fredkin and Wolfram's work, please check out my essay, but more importantly, please check out my film "Digital Physics", which is available on iTunes, Amazon Prime, and Vimeo. I'm trying to get the film seen by a wider audience than just friends and family, so any support you can offer is very appreciated:) Thanks!

    Jon

      Dear David Brown!

      I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

      I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

      I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.

      The concept of moving space-matter helped me: The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter; Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter; Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz; Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe; To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

      New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in essay I risked give «The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

      Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space.

      Do not let New Cartesian Physic get away into obscurity! I am waiting your post.

      Sincerely,

      Dizhechko Boris

        My guess is that Fredkin is correct in conjecturing that nature contains neither complete infinities nor potential infinities. My guess is that Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science" is one of the greatest books ever written -- however, it might not be. My guess is that nature is finite and digital if and only if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis can prove itself superior to string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis. It seems to me that the empirical evidence convincingly demonstrates that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. However, string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis might be able to explain Milgrom's MOND in terms of MOND-chameleon particles or in some other way. Your 2015 FQXI essay ... "Digital Physics": An Essay That Uses Poetic License to Discuss A Few Theories in the Movie ... has important questions (1-9, A-F, & 10-13) at the end. Question 2) "Can we logically prove things about our universe without having the technology to probe the very small and very large scales of it?" seems to me to be particularly interesting. My guess it that experts on the foundations of physics might ultimately split into 5 main groups: (1) string theorists who favor the string landscape in some form; (2) string theorists who favor Wolfram's automaton with a multiverse; (3) string theorists who favor Wolfram's automaton without a multiverse; (4) other string theorists; (5) ultra-skeptics concerning string theory. Can the big bang and black holes really be thoroughly understood beyond extremely serious doubts? I doubt that there will ever be enough empirical evidence to pin down the big bang and black holes. It seems to me that there is an extremely important question in your FQXI essay Digital Physics: "Take the World from Another Point of View" at the end "One last question: Do you think that the Kolmogorov Complexity of the Universe up until this point is relatively high or low?" -- this question seems to me to be particularly important. It seems to me that the idea that Kolmogorov complexity can be defined for any mathematical sequence might be somewhat problematic if extrapolated to nature itself. Is Wolfram's principle of computational equivalence empirically valid? The answer to the preceding question seems unclear at this stage of knowledge in physics. In terms of a publicity battle, it seems to me that your film "Digital Physics" is important. You might consider an attempt to create a company that sells stock online for corporate enterprises that create similar films, advertising ventures, or other corporate ventures in areas that interest you. My guess is that my own particular theory of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is guaranteed fail unless Milgrom's MOND, Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections, and the Koide formula are all successes. The Koide formula might be a success even if my theory fails. Square-root(mass) might be somehow interpreted as area but in a way compatible with Guth's inflation. The interpretation might be in terms of how the "negative pressure" of dark energy acts upon the quantum vacuum. In any, good luck with your cinematic ventures.

        What does dark energy imply for the foundations of physics? I want to make a few more points concerning string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis versus string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I have conjectured that dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy, while dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy -- and also that Einstein's field equations need 3 modifications in connection with my conjectural epistemology. Let us assume that my "64 Particles Hypothesis" is wrong. In that case, the Koide formula might be essential for understanding the foundations of physics but for a different reason than I have conjectured. Square-root(mass) might have some interpretation in terms of area, but for reasons involving supersymmetry and virtual particles involved in the explanation of how dark energy works in terms of the details of quantum gravity.

        www.quora.com/What-is-the-relation-between-dark-energy-and-virtual-particle-production-Can-the-expansion-of-the-universe-be-attributed-to-an-increase-in-the-number-of-virtual-particles

        If the "64 Particles Hypothesis" is wrong, then I guess that the space roar might be explained in terms of the decay of unknown particles somehow related to supersymmetry.

        Seiffert, M., Fixsen, D.J., Kogut, A., Levin, S.M., Limon, M., Lubin, P.M., Mirel, P., Singal, J., Villela, T., Wollack, E. and Wuensche, C.A., 2011. Interpretation of the ARCADE 2 absolute sky brightness measurement. The Astrophysical Journal, 734(1), p.6.

        If the "64 Particles Hypothesis" is wrong, then I guess that Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might have a multiverse explanation with string theory and supersymmetry.

        "What Are the Implications of Lestone's Heuristic String Theory?"

        Can string theory with supersymmetry be empirically refuted? I don't think so -- D-brane adjustments might provide explanations for any imaginable empirical findings. I doubt that MOND-chameleon particles can be empirically refuted -- the MOND-chameleon particles might cluster around the McGaugh correlation according to bizarre concoctions by clever string theorists. However, in my basic theory, Witten's 11-dimensional model would probably be essential for making the Wolfram automaton pay off. Why does 11^2 divide the order of the monster group?

        David,

        It is said that the most important word in poetry is "like". Your essay is the closest thing to a poem I have seen in this contest. This work is a complex network of similes. I hope you do well in the contest and it was interesting and enjoyable reading your work.

        Sincerely,

        Jeff

          Dear David Brown,

          I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at the essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

          I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

          For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

          Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

          With axioms like... 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 General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

          Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

          Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

          http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

          Best wishes to your essay.

          For your blessings please................

          =snp. gupta

          Thank you for your interest in my ideas. Your remark "... Those MOND-chameleon particles sound fun and I hope you are correct about them ..." from the thread on your essay is not really a good hope from my viewpoint. My basic theory is an interpretation of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I say that the 3 main predictions of my theory are: the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect, the Space Roar Profile Prediction and the "64 Particles Hypothesis". There are various threats to the empirical validity of my basic theory -- among these threats are physical evidence for supersymmetry, the existence of magnetic monopoles (in free space), and/or the existence of MOND-chameleon particles. The MOND-chameleon particles would indicate that Milgrom's MOND is an APPARENT phenomenon (somewhat like Coriolis forces or other inertial forces) -- in other words, Milgrom's acceleration law might be a result of ignoring the existence of MOND-chameleon particles. My basic theory implies that MOND is a REAL phenomenon (which occurs as one of the consequences of some gravitons escaping from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse). However, my basic theory is somewhat philosophically distasteful to me (because the theory implies that it is impossible to change the future). Consider 3 questions: Is there a maximum wavelength in the physical universe? Can energy, spacetime, and quantum information be explained in terms of Fredkin-Wolfram underlying the Planck scale? Who is the world's greatest living theoretical physicist?

          Is Ed Witten really the world's greatest living theoretical physicist? -- quora.com

          Who are some of the world's leading nuclear, particle and high energy physicists alive today?-- quota.com

          I think that the world's greatest living theoretical physicist might be Witten or Weinberg -- it's difficult to say. My guess is that Witten's 11-dimensional model is essential for formulating Wolfram's automaton and establishing the empirical validity of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I have conjectured the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

          Hi David

          There were a number of aha moments for me when I read your essay - hierarchy of experimental physics trumping all other fields going all the way down to philosophy, as well as the delightful quotes from distinguished people like Witten, Wolfram and Crick. I must confess I have a real soft spot for quotes since I too have used them extensively in my essay. The reading list was quite a nice touch too. I have rated your essay accordingly.

          I would also include in the reading list some titles from the fields of Constitutional Law and Economics. This is because I think the intelligence of systems can be understood from the extrinsic side (Constitutional nation state) as well, if the direct route to it through consciousness should prove too arduous. Admittedly, the concept of consciousness cannot even begin to be compared to the phenomenon of Constitutional Government, but we may be able to make progress on understanding some other aspects of the mind (like intelligence) by approaching it from the extrinsic side. At least, my essay is premised on it.

          Looking forward to read some of the titles in your list!

          Regards, Willy

            "... soft spot for quotes ..." Many quotations are valuable guides that point out the good way to follow and/or the bad way to avoid. Consider the following quote from Crick's "What Mad Pursuit":

            "Theorists almost always become too fond of their own ideas, often simply by living with them for so long."

            "What Mad Pursuit" by Francis Crick, page 141

            David,

            Wow, you referenced my response to your thread! Your work is a complex work of art. I like to start simple and not travel far afield. If you think of time as a function of entropy then things get simple. Take the Coriolis force, it is non-conservative, but only exists because one is unknowingly in a rotating reference frame. A point charge in a magnetic field is in such rotating reference frame. Charge is gage invariant, but magnetic field is not, so your magnetic mono-pole would disappear in some reference frames. The spin of an electron, which is related to magnetic fields is invariant. If we look at type I superconductors, they produce a magnetic field due to current flow, yet do not have heat flow due to electrons. If we think of a state that is not changing in entropy as being undefined in time (because time is a function of entropy) then we can have momentum and the magnetic field due to momentum without the particles "moving". A spin state could be the same non-moving, time undefined, angular momentum.

            Jeff

            Dear Mr. Brown

            About your ideas:

            (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, and MOND will provide the basis for the empirically valid interpretation of string theory.

            I think that MOND is better aproach than solution with dark matter. But, Milgrom will be Kepler of the of contemporary cosmology when he find some predictive formulas in Cosmology.

            (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

            About The Koide formula you can find solution here: viXra:1509.0135 or here: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/5605

            Regards,

            Branko