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]

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

      James

      Yes your discussions with Steve Agnew. Do you feel he swayed your mind, or did you sway his on any point or another? I only tuned into part of the conversation, so I'm not sure how things turned out.

      But generally speaking, I see the difficulty you have making people realize the potential benefit of defining mass. It not only surprises me that they cant see the logic, but also that they will argue so fervently to maintain status quo. They have accepted and wish to preserve understanding of the world that has been presented to them. Its a particular mindset more than it is a reasoned approach to science. But dont worry James, something is going to give at some point and the flood gates will open to change. Those stuck in the mud will be swepped up reluctantly in the current. They will need to hear it from their perceived to be authorities first, and then they will change direction all as one.

      Thanks for the link pointer.

      Youre free tomorrow! I wonder if we couldnt try live chat? Do you have Facebook, perhaps we could use the messenger service?

      Steve

      Steven,

      You are doing well for your first participation and introduction of your views. I think it would be best to leave your views undisturbed here in your forum. Readers should be introduced in the easiest manner possible to what you think. Please look to my forum for discussions that include my view.

      James Putnam

      Steven,

      Well we disagree. That is fine; but, it will need to be discussed so that we have a chance to bat it back and forth. I will introduce my position by saying that Einstein messed physics up but good! Lets talk about predicting relationships:

      SA: 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? ...

      JP: Professionals will always pay attention to the patterns observed in empirical evidence. They make certain that their interpretation does not contradict empirical evidence. You will not find that a professional's ideas contradict patterns observed in empirical evidence. At least not for known patterns. Their mathematics will include known patterns. It is those patterns that make for successful predictions. The mathematics is unaware. It does not know what names theorists' assign to properties. It does not know what interpretations are expressed verbally. What it knows is that there are magnitudes that are brought together according to the rules of mathematics. The mathematics does honor units. It honors the relationships between properties, which are represented by their units, and it has been given, by the theorist, the mathematical form necessary to mimic the patterns of empirical evidence. For example, the predictions of the equation f=ma are unaffected by my disagreement with theorists; where, I insist that mass must be made a defined property while they live with it remaining an undefined property. There is much else about physics that will show that it is affected by this disagreement, but not f=ma. I will wait for your response before continuing on to clock's versus altitude and then on tp space-time.

      James Putnam

      Steven,

      I just tried to leave a post in your forum and then a post in my forum. They both ended up in your forum. Sorry. Being experienced doesn't always protect one from making a mistake! :)

      James Putnam

      Dear George

      Thank you kindly, I am delighted to receive these words from you. That there are people out there that follow my logic, and that realize it does have the promise of conforming to the observations of the world. That is everything I set out to achieve with my essay, and is what you have provided for me. Thank you once again.

      I have read your abstract and have taken an immediate liking to it. I will make a start on your essay now and return to you soon with comment.

      Best regards

      Steve

      "Youre free tomorrow! I wonder if we couldnt try live chat? Do you have Facebook, perhaps we could use the messenger service?"

      I will have more time, but, I am not certain when. First I will do what my wife would like to do. That won't take up the whole day. We are in for some inclement weather. I will post in the Alternative Models forum under Blogs when I am available. I like that others, including adversaries, see what I write. I am not active on Facebook although I do have an account there. I don't use it, so I am inexperienced, although I receive notifications because it is there. My family and relatives use Facebook a lot. So I see when they have tagged me or other. I won't evaluate my discussion with Steve Agnew. I will let our posts help readers determine that for themselves. I would like to know what readers think. Maybe there are any! :) Everyone is busy. I am writing what I think needs to be said. I keep it up!

      James Putnam

      James Putnam

      James

      I wonder how our time zones will correlate? I'm in Australia, My late morning will be your evening. I'll message here sometime in the morn, but if your busy then no drama.

      Steve

      James

      I had a quick look on facebook and cant find you. Whats your handle?

      Steve

      Sorry James, I dont know where this is "the Alternative Models forum under Blogs"

      Steve

      Steven,

      Our winter storm failed to materialize and my time was spent with my wife out. The Alternative Models Forum is reached by clicking on Forum, then clicking on Ultimate Reality, then clicking on Alternative Models of Reality. If someone's blog messages has the link Alternative Models of Reality, then just click on their message.

      Following this message is another installment on taking a derivative. That will end it for now. This is our last week for evaluating Essays. Also, I have fallen behind in our general conversation. I will see what I can do about correcting that. Two quick responses: (1) What is being transferred? If the answer is energy, then the word may seem sufficient, Physicists rely heavily upon it; but, it is not an empirically established 'substance'. There is 'magic' in some of the words that physicists use and 'energy' is one of those words. Energy is not explained. The idea of mass and energy equivalence does not explain either mass or energy. Besides they are not equivalent. They are proportional to one another. They are not the same thing.

      Energy's only derivation is as the product of force and distance. One must explain 'force' if their solution relies upon the word 'energy'. What is it that is being transferred? Force is unexplained. there is much that remains unexplained because the properties of mechanics are derived from mass, length, and time. None of these are derived properties. None have a physical explanation. They are introduced simply as existing.

      Response (2): Photon activity refutes the idea that time is either photon activity or object activity or both. The reason for my saying this is what I presented in my essay for the first essay contest. The Nature of Time. What i showed in that essay is that there is a Universally Constant Incremental Measure of Time. It is the time that any photon spends acquiring information about a change of velocity of a charged particle. It is also the time that any photon spends transferring that information to another charge particle. In my essay and in all of my work, it can be seen as (delta)t. It is also the time required for a photon to travel the radius of a hydrogen atom anywhere, under any conditions. It is the time it takes for any photon to pass a given point. It is independent of the speed of light which is always changing. It is the clock of the Universe and it ticks away everywhere with perfect time.

      Anyway that is how I view it. My reward for learning this was that the use of (delta)t in the denominators in physics equations is what brought unity to all of my equations. It is also what allowed me to discover new equations, one of which was presented in my current essay.

      James Putnam

      Steven,

      "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."

      I often write using differentials. Here is the reason why I write the mathematics as I do. If one knows algebra, then much of differential Calculus can be understood if written using those differentials. It is easy to follow. Someone reading my words might more easily connect my word meanings to my equations.

      Acceleration is a change of velocity with respect to time. Since all physics empirical evidence is communicated to us via photons as measures of change of velocity with respect to time, that empirical evidence arrives in the form of incremental measures. like pieces, of acceleration, i.e., a usually very small measure of a change of velocity with respect to a unit of time. We all know that a=dv/dt. What may not be so clearly known is that dv is the differential of velocity and dt is the differential of time. The ratio of dv/dt is the derivative of velocity with respect to time.

      Both of those differentials are very small changes. So small that they are said to be approaching infinitely small magnitudes. Yet their ratio does not change. Their ratio is the change of velocity with respect to time, located at some point on a curve of a plot of velocity vs time. I write it as dv/dt. Physicists might write it as Dtv. That D might also be fancy script form.

      How is one to easily visualize the physical meaning of dv/dt? The answer is that the ratio of differentials comes from a right triangle. A right triangle plotted on rectangular Cartesian coordinates is the basis for the derivative of a function. The 'x' coordinate is horizontal and called the abscissa. The 'y' coordinate is vertical and called the ordinate. A right triangle has a hypotenuse. A curved line representing a change of velocity with respect to time is plotted on graph paper. The hypotenuse is called the tangent line because it is placed so that it touches the plotted curve at a point. It is the two other sides of the triangle that are of immediate interest. If velocity is plotted against time, the vertical side of the triangle represents a measure of a change of velocity; and, the bottom or base side represents a measure of a change of time.

      The value of the vertical side divided by the value of the base side gives the slope of the tangent line. The slope is the rate of change of the variable 'v' with respect to the variable 't'. Having the tangent line touching only at a point means that the changes of velocity and time are as small as possible without becoming zero. Division by zero is not permitted. The extremely small change in 'v' is represented by dv and the corresponding extremely small change in time is represented by dt. These extremely small changes contribute to accuracy in the solution. The derivative is the slope of the plotted line at any point. If the line represents a plot of velocity with respect to time, then the slope (dv/dt) of the line at any point is the acceleration at that point. The steeper the slope, the greater the rate of change.

      Sometimes the Greek letter Delta (A small triangle.) is used instead of the letter 'd', when the changes are not so very small. Those values of change are referred to as being incremental. Getting away from my style of math, in Calculus books you will usually not see the derivative written as dv/dt. It is customary to use the Capital letter 'D' as in Dt(v) which is saying the same thing as dv/dt. The velocity 'v' is usually a variable and its 'function' is how it varies such as v=1/2gt. The velocity 'v' is a function of the variable 't' as in 1/2gt. So, in general, all variables that are functions of 't' can be represented by a general form of a derivative written as dtf(t).

      Mathematics books will be far more rigorous than I have been. My intent is to get to the basic idea of taking a derivative. You will see much more style applied to the mathematics used here by the professionals. There is good reason behind the use of all of that style. It conveys far more meanings than this simplified form that I use. However, I write so that non-professionals might also understand my work. Truth is that doesn't happen much, but, that is what I try to accomplish.

      Lastly, Integration in Calculus is reversing what was done when taking a derivative. That doesn't always go smoothly. That is why Calculus books have lists of 'Integrals' that are general forms for known types of solutions. You look for the type of solution you need and let your mathematics take that form and run with it. Pay attention to lone constants. They disappear when taking a derivative. They are unknown what they were before. They have to be solved for when you reverse the process and are instead Integrating. You have to know some data, independent of the Integration process, that allows you to solve for the constant.

      It all gets handled well in the end by the mathematicians. Physics is another matter. There is interpretation and invention that invades and, I think, often overpowers the mathematics causing it to serve 'interpretation and invention' rather than serve to reveal what empirical evidence is communicating to us.

      James Putnam

      James

      Thank you once again for providing a mathematical lesson. Much appreciated. I have wanted to develop my mathematical capability for quite some time. When the contest is finalized and my sail boat is anti-fouled and afloat I will study your last message with fervor. When I am anchored behind isolated islands in foul weather I'll have plenty of time toward perusing such learning.

      Ok I note that my notion of time being photon activity is not comparable with your approach which is independent of the speed of light. I am not motivated to contest this point of difference, but rather my intention is just to map out your concepts so I know where you stand. As I have said earlier, it is easy to find disagreement on the internet and so I dont go out of my way to seek it. I would rather sound out your ideas with a mind for learning from you.

      On facebook I think you need to activate the messenger service to receive a message from me. I think we can cover a lot of ground very quickly using live chat. Instant response times will allow me to get a better gauge on your ideas.

      Steve

      Hi Steven,

      Appreciate your visiting my essay and your generous vote.

      Yes, let's discuss gravity. My website has my e-mail in the about the author section. It is don.limuti@gmail.com

      I should not have been able to make the calculation I made....something unexpected is going on. It would be really cool to see if we can create either a more complete theory or come up with some experiments that can be tried.

      Thanks,

      Don Limuti