The Day After the “Nightmare Scenario” by Scott S Gordon

Dear Dr. Scott S. Gordon,

You wrote: "The new math starts by expressing the properties of a component building block ingredient. This ingredient along with energy is the only ingredient required to build our universe and everything in it, starting with the building of spacetime itself. The new math must be simple because the universe starts with one basic ingredient which builds in complexity. The more complex the structures in the universe become, the more complex the math required to describe it."

My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Dr. Scott S. Gordon,

My contention that the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light am not a theory, it am an easily provable fact. You can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed constantly changing flat looking varied colored surfaces no matter in which direction you look. It logically follows that only infinite surface am observable.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Scott,

Reality never has to be defined. Only pretentious humanly contrived finite abstract

misinformation about imaginary reality has to be mis-defined. When I use the word "visible" I mean that only surface can ever be seen by any eye, including both of yours, no matter in which direction you are facing. Real vision requires no "mechanism of experimentation."

There am only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface, There are no finite distances in infinity.

Although scientists persistently pretend to know about finite matter that is somehow immersed in invisible space, actually, all solid, liquid and vapors have a visible surface. There am no invisible space

Abstract finite separate dimensions of length, width, depth and time cannot ever have existed for one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface for it would have to be infinite in all aspects including duration.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Scott,

You were right to think I'd be fascinated to study another 'bottom up' approach. Our start points match; "the universe starts with one basic ingredient which builds in complexity".

You lost me a bit with 'rotating points' as a 'point' has no dimensions so can't rotate, but I agree rotation is key and you quickly reverted to compatibility with 'distinguishability' of rotations.

In 'new maths' I expected new laws rather than just new symbols & meanings, but probably wise as I can't see how most laws can be replaced. A fundamental I agree as very important is that constant 'c' always relates to an ambient frame.

What I found challenging is that what I consider as the two most flawed starting points of present doctrine needing to be discarded are 'space-time' and the 'Big Bang'! However again I quickly found you just used the 'labels' not the inferences, so no problem. However I'd vastly prefer 'dark energy' or 'ambient sub-quntum' medium' as tags. On the BB I've published on a consistent cyclic cosmology to replace it, but again your start point is equivalent to a re-ionization, so seems not a problem. Is it?

All in all quite novel & fun. But now the crunch' Stefan's point is valid. There are thousands of models out there but those of non-zero value to science are predictive and experimentally falsifiable in some way. I tried to think of some way to test yours but there doesn't seem to be one. That means it's probably no help in advancing from (or dispensing with!) current physics, though doesn't make it wrong or invalid.

Do stay with it as I think you may have some interesting foundations, but I should say my own derivations as quite the inverse, resolving anomalies & inconsistencies, predictive and experimentally provable. But do please check through it as I have yours if you have time and identify if & where you may disagree with that or see any flaws.

Also let me know if I've fundamentally misunderstood yours!

Very Best.

Peter

Hi, Scott. Your essay was fun to read, but I had problems with it all the way through. At the start, you having spinning points prior to space-time. Spinning is rotation in space, and a point has no extension, so what does that concept mean? At the end, you seem to imply that your theory explains the values of fundamental constants. Do you have any numerical predictions that you can offer as a demonstration? I has comparable questions all the way through.

Dear Scott,

I read your papers and first let me say that I believe that we hold one concept in common although it is expressed somewhat differently in our presented theories and that is that one of the two most basic entities in the observable universe is motion. Because you are locked into the natural creation viewpoint, it is understandable that you feel the need to consider the construction of the spatial system as the other most basic structure to explain the total construction of the universe. I, on the other hand, have decided to limit my current level of information transfer to man here to the construction of the next lower level of hierarchical structure of which man currently does not have a workable conceptual understanding, which is the level of matter particle, energy photon, and field particle structuring. I am doing this primarily for two reasons. First, an understanding of the construction of these entities will clear up many of the quantum and relativity nonsense beliefs, such as that things cannot happen unless they are observed, that the various particle interaction results and there probabilities of occurrence are due to some mysterious random quantum energy fluctuations of spatial vacuum, the concept of multiverses, and the idea from relativity that time is an existent dimension, etc. Once these erroneous concepts are eliminated, the math becomes much simpler and a complete understanding of the universe down to the level of the spatial system that is designed to provide the positions that basic motions can be on, can move from one to another on, and can interact with each other on and the basic motions that inhabit that spatial system can then be more easily understood. I, therefore, start with the existent spatial system and basic motions as the two most basic structures presented in my theory. I leave the mechanisms behind the structure of the spatial system that produces what we perceive as space and the outputs of the motions that are contained in that mechanism that we perceive as basic motions for a later information transfer when man has first been able to understand the levels down to that mechanism. The second reason that I do not provide that information at this point is that man in this world would like to think of himself as god with power over everything and, therefore, would not readily accept that there is someone much greater than him who has constructed the universe and everything in it. The problem is that when you go beyond the simple level of the spatial system and its basic motions to what generates and maintains that system and those motions, the complexity expands outward in the same way that it expands in the other direction when you go from the simple motions to the construction of sub-energy particles, energy photons, matter particles, all of the different atoms that can be constructed of them, all of the great multitude of different possible molecules that can be constructed from the atoms, and the innumerable large scale objects that can be made of them, etc. It is like figuring out after a lot of observation and then putting those observations into a coherent understanding of your world, that you are really just the output images on a very large television screen or computer monitor except that instead of just being made of a light output, you are also made of matter particle and sub-energy field outputs and in three dimensions instead of just the two dimensional TV screen. The organizations of these outputs as they appear in your world require a behind the scenes complex mechanism in the same way that the television also requires to display its image and in addition to that a more complex information structure is needed to generate the actual entities that appear on the screen and to update them as a result of their interactions, etc. The problem is that you have no way to observe those behind the scenes mechanisms. If, on the other hand, the one who made the television and the other needed mechanisms would write a book that gives some of the details of their construction and would then display that book on the screen, so you could read it, you might be able to get some understanding of it. That is what has actually happened, but that is for the next level of understanding, which most people would not currently be able to accept, because of their naturalist outlook on life that prevents them from considering or looking into such things.

To get back to your paper, you either have a problem of lack of understanding of how things work or you have not developed the language to properly express them. First you say that the void contains a very large number of points. If that is the case then these points must be existent entities of some nature. You say that they can possess the property of containing motion. This suggests that in order to contain a motion within themselves they must be composed of some substance that can interact with a motion and contain it. You do not address what the points are composed of, which makes an unanswered more basic concept yet to be developed. You say that the motion contained within the point is in the form of a spin. Basic motions continually move from one point to the next. This requires an existent spatial system of at least one dimension for them to travel in. A spinning motion is a cyclical motion that requires at least a two dimensional spatial system to exist in. This is because a spinning motion is the result of continual interactions between two or more motions acting at directional angles to each other. If the spin that you are talking about does not conform to the laws of motion then you should not use that analogy, but instead make a new word and then define it to describe the details of what is actually happening and also the same thing about the point if it does not conform to the current definition of a mathematical point. If all of these points exist in the void, it seems that the void that you are talking about does not conform to the basic understanding of it as being an empty spatial system. You could also consider the void to be completely nothing, but nothing could not contain anything even zero dimensional points that possess properties such as the ability to spin, etc. Without the existence of any dimensions, the only thing that could exist is just one point because if any more points existed they would create a one dimensional world in that a motion could travel the distance that would be created between them from one point to the other. In reference to a primary spinning point, you talk about the surrounding or adjacent points. In a zero dimensional world, there could not be any other points next to or surrounding the point because there would be no possible positions in existence that were next to or surrounding the point without the construction of at least one dimension to provide positions for those points to exist in. One point could not be relatively closer or farther away from another point without forming a distance between them. You say "Relative motion of each surrounding point represents a circular path". A path is a way that can be traveled from one place to another, which is essentially a distance that can be traveled. A circular path requires the existence of at least two dimensions because a circle is a two dimensional object. When you talk about a god entity's energy field, what is that energy field composed of? Is it something that would exist as part of the entity even if it is not spinning or is it either the spinning motion itself or somehow caused by that motion? When you talk about the existence of an infinite energy field across a god entity's diameter are you saying that the field contains an infinite amount of energy? If the entity is a zero dimensional point it would seem that its diameter would be zero also. When you talk about E2 energy you say "is associated with a particle that displaces the surface of the water medium in a circular motion of the water. This constant circular motion of the water is required for the creation of E2 energy contained in particles". What is the water that you are mentioning and since this is at the scale of entities that exist in space-time and not as those existing as space-time it would seem that their motions should conform to the observed laws of motion, so how is the circular motion generated and maintained in them? I am assuming that the circular motion is what you consider to be the source of the matter particle's rest mass. A normal circular motion is a two dimensional entity. It can exist in a three dimensional object, but it does not produce a three dimensionally uniform mass effect. As an example, If you have two spheres of the same size that are rotating at the same speed in the same direction (counterclockwise), such that the axis of one is parallel to the axis of the other and they move toward each other with the center of one heading directly toward the center of the other and then they interact with each other, the interaction side of one will be moving in one direction that is perpendicular to its direction of travel in one direction while the interaction side of the other will be traveling in the opposite direction in a line that is also perpendicular to its direction of travel. This will cause a mass effect that will tend to cause the spheres to repel each other. If, on the other hand, you bring them together, such that the axis line of one is aligned with the axis line of the other and they are both rotating in the same direction, when they come together their rotation does not introduce a mass effect because the rotation does not exist relative to one another. It requires a three dimensional motion to maintain an equal static mass effect in all directions around the matter particle.

You may have a good point, but it is counterproductive to use examples that exhibit behaviors that are opposite to those that you are trying to convey. It would be better to make up new words for the new objects or concepts and then describe their behaviors as meticulously as you can while at the same time keeping the explanations of your concepts as simple as possible. I will stop for now and wait for your reply to clarify to me about these things.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Scott,

In your approach, I miss the efforts of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann to establish a fundament that emerges into a suitable modeling platform. In their 1936 paper, they introduced a relational structure that they called quantum logic and that mathematicians call an orthomodular lattice. It automatically emerges into a separable Hilbert space, which also introduces a selected set of number systems into the modeling platform. Hilbert spaces can only cope with division rings and separable Hilbert spaces can store discrete values but no continuums. Each infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space owns a unique non-separable Hilbert space that embeds its separable partner. In this way, the structure and the functionality of the platform grow in a restricted way. After a few steps a very powerful and flexible modeling platform evolves. This model acts as a repository for dynamic geometric data that fit in quaternionic eigenvalues of dedicated operators. The non-separable part of the model can archive continuums that are defined by quaternionic functions.

In other words, the foundation that was discovered by Birkhoff and von Neumann delivers a base model that can offer the basement of well-founded theories and that puts restrictions on the dimensions which universe can claim.

Multiple Hilbert spaces can share the same underlying vector space and form a set of platforms that float on a background platform. On those platforms can live objects that hop around in a stochastic hopping path. This adds dynamics to the model.

The orthomodular lattice acts like a seed from which a certain kind of plant grows. Here the seed turns into the physical reality that we perceive.

Stochastic processes generate the hop landing locations and characteristic functions control these processes. These characteristic functions are the Fourier transform of the location density distribution of the hop landing location swarm that represents the elementary particle.

This delivers the holographic control of these elementary modules. Also, higher level modules are controlled by stochastic processes that own a characteristic function.

See: "Stochastic control of the universe"; http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0243 Indirectly via the characteristic functions the universe is controlled in a holographic way.

The Wikiversity Hilbert Book Model Project investigates this approach.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project

http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen contains documents that treat some highlights of the project.

Hi Scott S Gordon,

"The "Nightmare Scenario" as stated by Sabine Hossenfelder in her article, "Finding New Particles at the LHC .....is really more confusing.... "we'd finally have to admit the truth: we're completely lost." Given the current impasse of theoretical physics, it is time to wipe out ourselves of preconceived notions of what we think we know about time and space. In essence we need to "go back to the drawing board". Since we have no idea where the current impasse is rooted, everything we think we know about time and space needs to be questioned. In other words, the drawing board needs to be a clean slate"...................

.......... very nice idea.... The Day After the "Nightmare Scenario" dear Gordon...is the real future vision... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

You may please know that in the Dynamic Universe Model the space time continuum was not there by default. And some more is there...... I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-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 GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Greetings Scott...

It is a noble attempt, but it falls short of the bar for such efforts. I would label your theoretical construct as a flawed application of some possibly brilliant insights in Physics. I cite the imposition of a cubic lattice as an ad hoc assumption, for example, and posit that a more natural one would be close packing where a hexagonal lattice is the most dense. But some of your key insights put you in good company.

The opening section sounded very much like the lead-in given by Lee Smolin for Energetic Causal Sets in his talk at GR21. And the section about spinning points being fundamental hearkens back to Lee's work on Spin Foam Networks with Fotini Markopoulou. But there are some possible missteps, or transitional assumptions that need closer examination, and should be adjusted.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I should add this...

Even a naive approximation to a brilliant insight is better food for thought than rehashing the same tired ideas again and again. And you do give your readers a lot of good material to work with.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist