THE SCALE LANDSCAPES OF THE UNIVERSE by David Pinyana

Dear David Pinyana

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

Hello Mr Pinyana,

I loved your scales and rankings,general.

Congratulations.

Regards

"Another alternative for Dark Matter could be that for larger scales emerge new forces (interactions) unknown nowadays." Two important questions in the foundations of physics are: What is relativistic MOND? What does MOND mean in terms of the foundations of physics? The empirical successes of MOND suggest that at least 1 of Newton's 3 laws of motions might be wrong. Google "kroupa dark matter", "mcgaugh dark matter", and (for my viewpoint) "dark matter compensation constant". There could be unknown forces that emerge on the cosmological scale and/or at the Planck scale.

Good essay Pinyana,

Nice new concepts for a new Universe Model.... "This article intends to show a new Framework of the Universe: The Scale Relativity. This article proposes that the universe is composed of many more scale/size spectra (upper and lower) than the currently recognized limits (possibly over 10 e 1000 m and below 10 e - 1000 m). And for every level/spectra there would be different physical concepts and laws (emergents), although they could be linked by common underlying laws and concepts. And we (humans) are not in the middle. We are just in a random level within this broad spectrum scale/size."

Here this Dynamic Universe Model answers many physics questions starting from Micro level, Solar system level, Galaxy level and to the Universe level............

..................... Hence at this point, to ask you to please have a look at my essay ALSO, 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

Dear David Pinyana,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi to both of you,

Mr Pinyana,

I beleive that this dark matter not baryonic is essential for a real understanding of this quantuml gravitation.

If we have not still discovered this matter, it is simply due to fact that these particles are speeder than c.The waves of gravitation are speeder.When Zwicky has found this problem of galaxies,he has inserted this matter for the equilibrium.The MONDS and this modified newtonian mechanics are not really relevant because they consider only our baryons.The fact to consider this matter is important for a real understanding of whait is this dark matter and this quantum,gravitation.The fact to fractalise the scales does not mean thta we need to break our postulates and laws.The relativity and the newtonian mechanics cannot be broken.We can just imrpove them in adding this gravity.It is a subtil difference simply.Of course all is free to think like he wants, fortunately furthermore, that said we have laws and postulates.

Regards

Dear Pinyana,

I think that your essay is nice, the Landscapes of the Universe in your essay is good.

I like this phrase that "Empty" space might just be some kind of unknown "substance", made up of much smaller components, currently unknown (from a much smaller scale), and that still should be determined and discovered. This is what could give the empty space ("vacuum") a fractal (hierarchical) structure.

Empty space is not empty, which filled with some invisible substance.

You would read my essay that "A SPACE-TIME AS A PERFECT FLUID SINK FLOW" when you have a free time.

Ch.Bayarsaikhan

Dear David Pinyana

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 inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this 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. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

I find several points of agreement..

I recommended for publication, when sent a copy of Nottale's book for review several years ago. My departed colleague Ray Munroe wrote a paper on how the Scale Relative view helps us make sense of the particle landscape - after I gave him a copy. I also published a paper on Fractal Cosmology, some years back in Chaos, Solitons,& Fractals - dealing with some of the topics you reference. So I am familiar with the territory.

I find parts of this work a bit flaky, but it deserves a much higher rating than it enjoys. If you read my essay, you will see that I explicitly leave room for some of the points you make. I see the most recent void discovery as further evidence that the universe is fractal at all scales. However; I don't think the notion of 'turtles all the way down' is the correct resolution to the enigma in the nanoscale regime.

I have had personal contact with some of the researchers whose work you reference. It is important to properly acknowledge all the work you cite! I got to spend a fair amount of time with the Quantum Gravity folks at GR21, and attend their lectures. So I can flesh out some of the details about CDT, Braneworld scenarios, and other points where you get it almost right but miss the mark. This angle is certainly worthy of further research, but it is not yet a mature theory - only an interesting idea at this point.

There are some subtleties of the Math in higher-dimensional spaces that deserve mention. If you go up to higher dimensions or down to the Planck scale, the factors of non-commutativity and non-associativity must be considered, but even a lot of professional scientists do not treat this correctly. This was the gist of my conversation with Tevian Dray that forms the basis for my essay. I think you will find something to appreciate there.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hello again,

Reading what I wrote above, it sounds a bit too critical. I thought that overall you explained your idea well, and also have an idea worth pursuing. But in a contest like this, where your competition is some of the very scientists who are the top experts at major conferences, a high standard of excellence needs to be applied.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I will read this comment for detail later..

For now; I will assume you are familiar with the work of Magueijo et al, and so have heard about his Rainbow Gravity theory with Amelino-Camelia and others. If not, it's worth looking into. Also relevant is the Process Physics of Cahill, at Flinders U in Australia, if you do not already know of it. Spacetime is a moving or flowing fractal, in his formulation. I need to prepare for a meeting, but I will check back at some point, and offer further comments.

Regards, JJD