James

Oh yeah, and also keeping in mind that intriguing conversation you and I have partaken in. Variable C equating to a variable baryon mass. Gluons being photons that share the same variable C potential that normal photons do, depending on the galaxies gravitation potential. not only an interesting idea, but also one that delivers a seemingly appropriate formula for solving anomalous galaxy motions. This is all part of the same conversation you and I had earlier, however I havent explained all of my reasoning before now, how I came to share a similar outlook to you. Different in many ways, but similar in many respects.

My hope is that some of what has been shared between us earlier, will encourage you to follow up on what I share in my essay now. It isnt like my theory delves in obscurities like added dimensions, or some other intangible. My concept is very simple in this respect, that I point to two equality's and say, "consider the possibility this equality exists because energy flows from A to B". And that it is a simplest type of relationship, a conversion from work potential into work. The mechanics of this idea couldn't be simpler.

Steve

5 days later

Hi Steven,

"My hope is that some of what has been shared between us earlier, will encourage you to follow up on what I share in my essay now."

That I still need to do. I was studying it, but, my exchanges with Steve Agnew began to take up my time. That seems to be subsiding without resolution. You might find that you agree with this statement: Resolution is not a consequence of what takes place here at FQXi.org. But, so that I am understood by any readers: FQXi.org does provide a quality record of who said what when? If resolution comes about that will help as a reference wherever it turns out that resolution is possible. I haven't found that place yet. Theoretical physics protects itself not only from dissidents, but also from any outside source that might present the solutions that they have failed to provide. I don't expect any of them to be reading this.

"It isnt like my theory delves in obscurities like added dimensions, or some other intangible."

Definitely a plus in your favor.

"My concept is very simple in this respect, that I point to two equality's and say, "consider the possibility this equality exists because energy flows from A to B"."

Here is where I hesitate to agree. The reason is that energy is not a property. It is a calculation of force times distance with the resulting sum being what is called energy. Theoretical physicists will vehemently object to my statement. That is because energy is what replaces cause. Cause never appears in physics equationss. The right side of an equation consists of initial conditions while the left side of an equation consists of final conditions. The only place in an equation that cause can make its appearance without being part of the right side or the left side is as the equals sign. The equals sign is usually read as the magnitude and units of the right side equal the magnitude and units of the left side. However, my opinion is that it can also be read as the conditions of the right side of the equation are changed into the conditions of the left side of the equation. In other words, cause is represented by the equals sign. I am suggesting that the equals sign can be read as "is changed into". So, my opinion is that: It always remains the case that we only learn about effects and not about what is cause. We compare initial effects that have been previously gathered as empirical evidence with another set of effects that we gather after an experiment has been performed. We see their change. We find that the conservation laws provide that their magnitudes and units will be equal. However, it is obvious that the effects have changed. The cause of that change is unknown. At least it is unknown as a certainty. We are free to propose what the cause may be.

"And that it is a simplest type of relationship, a conversion from work potential into work."

Your last statement quoted above is the most like physics freed from theory. work has the same units as does energy. However, it differs in that its result is useful. Make that 'purposeful'. Work, just like energy, is force applied across a distance. However, when one refers to 'work', the magic that theorists imagine that energy, like a wizard, can perform to change the Universe from particle creation and chaos to human free-will, is not implied. Rather, the use of the word work acknowledges that there are effects, and, there must be cause, but, without trying to claim that a dumb mechanical process is as good as a wizard. The most that can be said about cause is what it does. So, setting the wizard aside: Saying that work is performed is as far as the mechanical interpretation of physics will allow us to go. Theoretical physics thrives on the pretense that the wizard exists, not as a God of course, but as energy. It is the greatest fraud of theoretical physics to teach that intelligence can arise from dumbness. I expect that we probably disagree on this point. Disagreement and discussion is good. My exchanges with professionals may not make it appear that I feel this way. It is their demeaning attitude all the while that they lack several important answers that causes me to challenge them back. You are welcome to challenge me back. I don't have all the answers. If I mixed up right from left in my earlier part of this message it is because I am left handed. Please read my intent as speaking about an initial side of an equation becoming a final side of an equation. I won't go back and check it.

I will return to talk about how a photon imparts force.

James Putnam

James

I find what you have said in response to my questions to be quite interesting, and I am familiar with these opinions and ideas of yours from reading your work and from our earlier discussions. However you haven't responded to my question, that even if it is poorly framed, the meaning of which is easily inferred.

"My concept is very simple in this respect, that I point to two equality's Auv and Tuv and say, "consider the possibility this equality exists because the capacity for work is transferred from A to B?"

Tuv being photon work which is perpetuated by an emergent field of space Auv. A field which photons metabolize to enable their capacity for motion and or work?

I understand something of your related ideas, the light field etc. So a tailored question for you might be, what causes photons to slow as they approach a gravitating body? And maybe extended too, what causes photon motion in the first place? I asked you this question some time ago, and your response was that sometimes prior cause is not required. But I'm asking you to reconsider this in light of the notion of the above Auv = Tuv, if you will please?

Steven

Steven,

"So a tailored question for you might be, what causes photons to slow as they approach a gravitating body? And maybe extended too, what causes photon motion in the first place? I asked you this question some time ago, and your response was that sometimes prior cause is not required

Very good message. This part I don't recall: "Your response was that sometimes prior cause is not required." It doesn't sound familiar to me. I am not clear on what that meant. I try to respond tomorrow.

James Putnam

James

I have been thinking along lines of an analogy which might be helpful.

My vision of the universal process Auv = Tuv, would be somewhat analogous of a battery with capacitance, an electrical circuit, and loading.

The Dark Energy observation would correspond to a field of space for which the Universe manages to leverage the full volume of space, to continually raise an energy capacitance Auv. In this respect the Universe might be considered analogous to a rechargeable battery.

Traditionally our batteries are connected to points of load via wires, however in the case of Auv = Tuv, every point of space could be a potential sight of discharge or load. So space itself being circuited.

Photons place a load on the capacitance of space, in much the same respect that a light bulb places load on a battery's capacitance. Photon velocity depending on the relative capacitance of space, corresponding to gravitational potentials. This gives a variable value C which corresponds to you're light field theory.

All Universal bodies Tuv sit within this universal circuit (space) drawing on the relative capacitance of Auv. In this respect all universal bodies Tuv plugged into the universal circuit Auv, are as light bulbs circuited in series. Light bulbs in series have lower voltage across their individual filaments than a single bulb, because of their shared loading, and therefore are collectively dimmer. An analogous effect is respectable for anomalous galaxy motions. Mass being a manifestation of photon C work capacity, it's value is dependent on the local capacitance of Auv. Crowding masses close together places a collective load on the local capacitance of Auv, which accounts for a lower value for C as crowding increases, and therefore a variable baryon mass is resulted. The exterior of Galaxies experience a higher Auv capacitance and therefore baryons have greater mass, and relative baryon mass declines as you move toward galaxy interior, as Auv capacitance declines.

I understand how cockamamie that might sound. But I deliver this idea within the wider context of a Darwinian theory, which needs to be taken into account. It gives me the ability to fashion a detailed coherent explanation, with specific reasons for why the universe came to be as we observe it to be. I have expressed some of these explanations within my essay, however my thinking on the subject is far more extensive than those. My further thinking on the subject is waiting for a conducive discussion that I expect will happen at some time or another, with the right person or persons. But I surf in white pointer shark infested waters all the time, so if those people dont hurry up and realize the potential of this idea, I might be robbed of the chance of sharing it personally. Robbed because imagination and skills of deduction are rare. Not aimed at you

Steve

Steve Andresen,

I don't learn from analogies as well as I do from direct descriptions. I am always looking for seeing the real thing. Analogies are always about something else. I am held back sometimes from responding promptly because I have difficulty with your terminology. An example: "Mass being a manifestation of photon C work capacity, ... " I am not saying that your thought is wrong. I have to do some 'work' to understand it. You provide enough information, but, I need to read all of it more than once. Actually, I have an immediate interest in your message about the weight load variation of a rotating rod. What I want to know, because I want to help, is: Do you know how to take a derivative of a function and also how to integrate a function? I think that the derivative idea applies to your rotating rod. I can write a response that may be helpful if I know that you know what a derivative is in Calculus. If you do not, then I can help better and more quickly than others can. If you know Calculus, then please excuse my message as my failing to see this in your messages.

James Putnam

Dear Steve,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay executed in the spirit of deep Carthusian doubt with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists, lyricists, poets and musicians filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

I believe that the modern "crisis of understanding" (K.V.Kopeykin "Souls "of atoms and "atoms"of the soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and the "three great problems of physics"), «trouble with physics (Lee Smolin," The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next") is the deep meta-physical crisis, the deep crisis of the ontological foundations of knowledge.

FQXI Contests are first of all new ideas. You give such ideas. I give my highest rating.

I believe, that only extremely constructive ontology, and the global "brain storm" with the most in-depth analysis of all the accumulated knowledge will help us to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation: "An educated people without a metaphysics is like a richly decorated temple without a holy of holies." (G.W.F.Hegel)

I invite you to read my ontological ideas .

Best regards,

Vladimir

    James

    You said

    "I am held back sometimes from responding promptly because I have difficulty with your terminology. An example: "Mass being a manifestation of photon C work capacity

    Haha yes I do understand. I do make effort towards prose, but not always, and not always well. Sometimes I just resort to short hand expressions, multiple meanings strung together without adequate reference for my reader. Sorry about this. In the case of the above example, I refer to my notion that mass is a work function based on photon velocity. Its ability to perform work equals velocity C. But I realize this is not the only confusing aspect of my expression. It has to be said though, that although you are far better at prose than myself, I sometimes also have to read your expressions a couple of times to let its message sink in, to become accustom to your approach. But a very worthwhile exercise it is indeed. I suspect this is somewhat inevitable when new concepts are invented.

    I'm glad my observation relating a poles weight transition in a gravitational field, takes your interest. I have some material which will simplify your considerations on the subject, a couple of illustrations, graphs etc. I will have to prepare these for you, so please hold on a bit. Its a very straight forward observation isnt it? I'm a little staggered this hasnt been noted before now, and that the few times I have presented it to forum communities over the last couple of years didnt eventuate in constructive conversation. A tough crowd that isnt accustomed to taking fresh evidences back to the basic considerations. So tangled up in the confusions, and dont know when to retreat back to the beginning and start the puzzle fresh.

    I have not fully ratified this quantum puzzle, because my understanding of the methods for testing Bells Inequality are limited. However, I have advanced my thinking far enough to know that this prescribes a very interesting dynamic which looks like a possible puzzle fit. A dynamic which decodes the anomalous quantum results, revealing the entirely causal mechanics behind the scenes. Put simply, the orientation of the two polarization filters in relation of each other, is an important detail in revealing the correlation of the quantum system, photons. If you change the orientation of the filters, then the shifting correlations observed of the photons, does not track linearly.

    Heres another way to put it. If you can account an entirely causal interaction that makes sense of the individual photons behaviors, giving the observed probability curve. Then the correlations then observed between a second photon and its filter, becomes a purely incidental correlation. The magic disappears.

    You asked me

    "Do you know how to take a derivative of a function and also how to integrate a function?"

    My mathematical ability is very informal. I am not schooled in the terminologies nor advanced formula building. But I think if you describe your meanings, I will take an understanding from you.

    Steve

    Dear Vladimir

    Thank you kindly. I am delighted to receive such a message and rating, an appreciation for new ideas. And I also very much enjoyed the links you provided. I have begun reading your essay and am up to page five, and it has to be said that I understand why you were able to tune into my concept and appreciate its merit. I think that you like I, are undertaking a personal quest to learn the nature of things. The universe is a single physical process, everything in existence related within one scope. Furthermore its explanation needs to be of a natural process, which makes articulated sense of the structures and complexities observed of the natural world, without having a sense of being a forced explanation. People seem to have a hard time recognizing that the nature of the complexity of this world requires an organisational principle. So it is very pleasing to meet people like yourself who are focused on the real issues confronting our collective scientific awareness.

    I have many considerations which have not been made apart of this essay, so if you are interested to know more about my concept at some time or another, then your questions are welcome plz? I will read your essay and follow up on your page with comments soon.

    Here are some inspirational videos you might enjoy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvrOzYtnLMA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khySM1YBQvA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnQZoh_YG40&list=RDrnJ1kRWUuyg&index=9

    Thank you once again

    Kind regards

    Steve

    Steven,

    Theorists have ideas that cause math to have to account for strangeness. Then, when their ideas are challenged, they resort to telling us: You need to learn the mathematics. Actually you do not. The reason is because it is their fallacious ideas that need their math. For example, Euclid's geometry is correct geometry. It says that a straight line is straight. Einstein needed a straight line to bend, but because we see it as a straight line, he needed Riemannian geometry invented before Einstein as an exercise in four dimensional geometry. It made no geometrical sense, but, since Einstein's space-time makes no geometrical sense, Riemannian geometry serves it well.

    I intend to introduce mathematics that makes sense. Adding two numbers yields their sum. Subtracting two numbers yields their difference. Believe it or not, this is quickly headed toward understanding calculus. We begin mathematics with adding and subtracting. We do not add nor do we subtract. We memorize solutions or we must resort to counting. If we count what the solution is for 3 added to two, we count from two, then three, four, five, and have our solution of five. For addition we count upward. For subtraction we count downward. If we remember answers, we spout them out or write them down and are finished with doing the math. Lower mathematics consists of shortcuts for counting.

    Advanced mathematics also consists of shortcuts for counting. There are many shortcuts, but, they all represent memorization of solutions or looking the solutions up in mathematical tables. There always remain some necessary calculations of multiplication, division, adding and subtracting, but those have their shortcuts covered in lower mathematics.

    Now for understanding calculus. There are two operations. One consists of taking the derivative of a function. The other consists of integrating a function. A function is an equation such as f=ma. The difference between lower mathematics and Calculus is that calculus is the mathematics of change. It is liberating! I remember very clearly when an instructor showed how to take the derivative of a function in my first semester of college. Then he dropped the subject and moved on to some other mathematical subject that needed to be reviewed by new students. I had no previous understanding of just about anything he was presenting. I didn't even know what algebra was.

    After seeing his short presentation of how to take a derivative and how he then just moved on to something else, I spoke up and asked if we were coming back to this? I knew that something very important had just passed in front of me. He said: Yes we are coming back to this. Mathematics came alive for me at that moment because I recognized that taking the derivative introduced the mathematics of change. Physics is about change.

    You should take notice that a derivative of a function is represented by the letter D. The reason is because taking the derivative is division. You should also notice that the symbol for integrating a function is very much like an S. The reason is because integration is taking the sum. It is addition. Addition is made simpler by memorization of multiplication tables. Division and multiplication are covered in lower mathematics as shortcuts for counting. We are still counting things. we count up and we count down.

    More in my next message about the mathematics of change. It has to come from me or it will probably be made to seem mystical by those who rely on others not understanding it.

    James Putnam

    Dear Steve,

    I thank you for the deep and inspiring response to my commentary, as well as for the wonderful links! Magnificent music and the majestic beauty of the Cosmos enable us, earthlings, to realize the necessity of unity in diversity for the preservation and development of life on Mother Earth - our Common Space Home .

    Kind regards

    Vladimir

    James

    This made me chuckle

    "Theorists have ideas that cause math to have to account for strangeness. Then, when their ideas are challenged, they resort to telling us: You need to learn the mathematics. Actually you do not. The reason is because it is their fallacious ideas that need their math."

    Nicely put.

    Then you said

    "For example, Euclid's geometry is correct geometry. It says that a straight line is straight. Einstein needed a straight line to bend, but because we see it as a straight line, he needed Riemannian geometry invented before Einstein as an exercise in four dimensional geometry. It made no geometrical sense, but, since Einstein's space-time makes no geometrical sense, Riemannian geometry serves it well."

    I believe you are entirely correct in what you say here. Non Euclidean straight lines in curved space, will be shown to be the wrong way to interpret the properties of space. However I believe Einstein did achieve something amazing, even if the interpretations are skewed somewhat. His concept of space time does track a real correlation. So how can GR be considered both right and wrong at the same time? Within my paradigm it is very simple.

    Time is nothing more than object activity. If your clock depends on photon activity to track time, and that activity alters its rate depending on gravitational potential, then you simply have to ask the practical question. Why does object activity, or photon activity change at different heights in a gravitational field? This is a better and simpler way to visualize what spacetime is. Time is not a component of the fabric of space. It is object activity. The spacetime concept is still real and useful, but it represents a correlation between space and object activity, or photon activity.

    Einsteins theory of General Relativity successfully tracks the correlation between space and object activity. This is how it is both right and wrong at the same time. He knew he didnt have all the conceptual pieces of the puzzle, and he never claimed that he did. He had successfully approached a remarkable truth, and so I think he deserves his credit.

    Thank you for being willing to assist my math learning. I am paying close attention, and I realize you are giving me a wonderful gift. Emphasizing the important points through story of experience, you are a good teacher James. "I knew that something very important had just passed in front of me." I am hearing you.

    Steve

    James

    Here are a couple of diagrams that will help you to interpret the pole weight transition in comparison to photon probability curves.

    The graph above, the length of the lines is proportional and represents the weight at that angle, 0, 22, 45, 67, 90 degrees. And so it shows the proportions of weight change through an arc of 90 degrees.

    The graph underneath is an altered version of that wiki link. The way they set out the chart on wiki is not very conducing to visualizing what I wish to point out. The way I present it here, it does not matter if you visualize a pole at different relative angles to the ground, or gravitational field, or a photon at different angles to a light polarization filter. Please let me know if you have any questions?

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20weight%20transition.jpg?dl=0

    Steve

    Dear Vladimir

    I have accidentally added the last message to the wrong thread. Just in case you were wondering what that was about.

    Kind regards

    Steve

    James

    Here are a couple of diagrams that will help you to interpret the pole weight transition in comparison to photon probability curves.

    The graph above, the length of the lines is proportional and represents the weight at that angle, 0, 22, 45, 67, 90 degrees. And so it shows the proportions of weight change through an arc of 90 degrees.

    The graph underneath is an altered version of that wiki link. The way they set out the chart on wiki is not very conducing to visualizing what I wish to point out. The way I present it here, it does not matter if you visualize a pole at different relative angles to the ground, or gravitational field, or a photon at different angles to a light polarization filter. Please let me know if you have any questions?

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w

    eight%20transition.jpg?dl=0

    Steve

    James

    Here is a really useful visual aid, the photon probability characteristics. I expect you might watch it from the start, but I point to the detail beginning at 3 minutes in, till 4.40 mins out.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adrCLSTn9mI

    Like I said earlier, I haven't fully ratified this concept. I dont knew if the proportions demonstrated by the poles weight transition are an exact match for the photon probability, or just similar. It would be nice to find out.

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    • Post #26

    Hi Steven,

    1. This is an amazing essay. I have seen nothing like this taking Darwinian to the universe level. I like it and believe you are correct that "Life came to express aims and intention, in a universe of compounded complexity neither contrived not chance, but Darwinian".

    2. You are much more than "an attentive student of nature". Out with it...how many degrees do you have.

    3. Please forgive this criticism: Your abstract is not about this essay.... were you trying to mislead people?

    Please take a look at my website, in particular the section: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/30_A_Tale_of_Two_Wavelengths.html

    Then go to the index and check out everything concerning gravity including: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/20_Dark_Energy_and_Mercurys_Orbit.html

    If you do this you will know why I support your thesis. I can see why others are having trouble rating your essay highly. They need to be trained in spotting good science and good art.

    Thanks very much,

    Don Limuti

      Hi Don

      I could not be happier that you are persuaded by my arguments. Seeing evidence that people can agree with my conclusions is a wonderful thing. Thank you Kindly.

      Regarding your second comment, I dont want to make the essay about me. As far as I am concerned it is the quality of the evidence provided for me by others, that made my observations possible. I feel as though I merely assembled a puzzle whereby the puzzle pieces were already well defined. You might expect me to be highly educated, but the truth will challenge this preconception. As it turns out, you dont need a formal science education to realize something new about nature.

      Your third question, was I trying to mislead people? No certainly not. You feel I should have declared my conclusions at the start? I feel I needed to slowly turn up the heat and build something of an argument before delivering my most controversial conclusions. And besides I started assembling the essay a week out from submission closure, and by the time closure fell upon me, I could have spent another week refining my essay. With spelling errors and bad grammar unresolved, I submitted in the final hour. I just copy pasted the essay opening into the abstract, but actually I think it is relevant to my essay. We have need for a natural organisational principle to explain the world. That pretty much sums it up and was stated.

      I am definitely going to follow up with your work, as I am very curious as to why you are receptive to my ideas. Do you have an essay submission? Please be a little patient as I need to contribute to peoples essay ratings as a priority, in the time I have between work and the pumping surf. But yes very keen to trade ideas with you.

      Yes, it takes time for people to assimilate new ideas. If I was trying to win this competition with popular points of view, then I wouldnt have criticized peoples cherished ideas in the opening paragraphs, multiverse, anthropic principle etc. And I am quite aware that radical ideas are not automatically liked. So my expectations are somewhat tempered by this. But as it turns out, a couple of high ratings have done wonders for my score lately. Thank you everybody for this, I feel very fortunate.

      Steve

      Hi dear Steven,

      You have represented one well written and attractive essay.

      You have touched there large cognitive problems of the nature and concerning to humanity also that is very interesting to read as these pushed to thinking on too many things. I like your work because I feel there the logic as well as the morality, without these we hardly can go ahead - to our "bright future." So I think your work deserved to good rating and more large attention of readers!

      Try please to open my work, its written a little bit in hard style and it concerned to somewhat short aspects, but I hope you can find there also something logic and morality.

      I hope hearing your impression in my page, and I will completed to study your work within short time.

      Best wishes

        Hi Steven,

        My exchanges with Steve Agnew have slowed down. I have tomorrow off from babysitting grandchildren.

        A helpful hint:

        When you want to include a link here at FQXi.org remove http://

        For example https://www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w will not become a link.

        In what follows I am substituting ( for [ you must use [

        The reason I am substituting ( is so that I do not form links in the examples

        You first write (link:

        Remember that ( should be [

        Then remove https:// from your address.

        Then you have (link:www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w

        Close the brackets (link:www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w)

        Those parenthesis are supposed to be brackets. Moving on:

        Add a name for your link. No spaces are necessary.

        (link:www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w]Interpreting the pole weight transition

        Add (/link)

        (link:www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w)Interpreting the pole weight transition(/link)

        Use brackets instead of those parenthesis and its done. I will do that now:

        Interpreting the pole weight transition

        James