• FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017

  • Using Klauder’s Enhanced Quantization to set a bound to the Cosmological constant, in Pre Planckian space- as a way to ascertain the most important fundamental physics question. by Andrew Beckwith

If further rate bombing occurs, I will say this. you whom are doing it are abusing this system and you are cowards.

For your information, an abbreviated version of this essay, with a different orientation has been submitted to the Gravity foundation contest, and so you whom have done rate bombing have only led me to have my voice heard in a different forum.

I did not expect to win this contest. I did not expect this last minute cowwardly behavior.

It is too bad for you who did this cowardly behavior, but my essay has been already accepted by George Rideout of the gravity foundation as an entry.

IMO you failed to shut me up

In addition, a variant of this essay will be put up in Rencontres de Moriond.,

Take that for what it is worth, you rate bombing coward

Andrew Beckwith, PhD

http://moriond.in2p3.fr/cosmo/2018/participants.php

Dear rate bombing coward.

Please observe that I have a spot on this list

Also, coward the following will be presented in

Moriond

YOU LOOSE

Using "Enhanced Quantization" to Bound the Cosmological Constant, (For a Bound-on Graviton Mass), by Comparing Two Action Integrals(one Being from General Relativity) at the Start of Inflation

Authors: Andrew Beckwith

We are looking at comparison of two action integrals and we identify the Lagrangian multiplier as setting up a constraint equation (on cosmological expansion). This is a direct result of the fourth equation of our manuscript which unconventionally compares the action integral of General relativity with the second derived action integral, which then permits equation 5, which is a bound on the Cosmological constant. What we have done is to replace the Hamber Quantum gravity reference-based action integral with a result from John Klauder's "Enhanced Quantization" . In doing so, with Padamabhan's treatment of the inflaton, we then initiate an explicit bound upon the cosmological constant. The other approximation is to use the inflaton results and conflate them with John Klauder's Action principle for a way to, if we have the idea of a potential well, generalized by Klauder, with a wall of space time in the Pre Planckian-regime to ask what bounds the Cosmological constant prior to inflation. And, get an upper bound on the mass of a graviton. We conclude with a redo of a multiverse version of the Penrose cyclic conformal cosmology to show how this mass of a heavy graviton is consistent from cycle to cycle. All this is possible due to equation 4. And we compare all this with results of reference [1] in the conclusion.

Comments: 10 Pages. For possible inclusion into FFP 15, pending acceptance by Jesus Cancier, of Alicante, Spain, and the FFP 15 committee

Download: PDF

proof I got an essay in the Gravity foundation contest

From: George M., Jr. Rideout

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 2:15 PM

Subject: Re: Fwd: https://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/2017-awards-for-essays-on-gravitation/

To: rwill9955b@gmail.com

Thank you very much!

G. Rideout

In a message dated 2/10/2018 11:55:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, rwill9955b@gmail.com writes:

please consider this an entry into your gravity contest

Andrew

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Andrew Beckwith

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:08 AM

Subject: https://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/2017-awards-for-essays-on-gravitation/

To: andrew beckwith

https://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/2017-awards-for-essays-on-gravitation/

    Why I was so blunt about last minute rate BOMBING

    I never expected to win this contest.

    I did expect a discussion of ideas

    In doing the rate bombing, two community members showed

    a complete disregard as to the premise of DISCUSSION

    All you have done is to try to silence a point of view and

    in this, you have FAILED.

    In this, I can say in the Gravity foundation contest, and

    in Rencontres De Moriond that I will continue with this venue

    and hope for some sort of impact.

    In doing rate bombing, all you did, is to make me MORE

    willing to present what I have to say and you did not

    succeed in censoring a point of view.

    You have neglected your obligation to discuss IDEAS and

    in this you have FAILED.

    Wear it.

    You have not stopped me from presentation

    As I did NOT expect to win, or to be in the FQXI book

    in Springer, I have no complaints, as to what the

    RESULTS of my contest entry, per se

    I am APPALLED at what rate bombing shows as far as violation

    of Scientific ethics and also of the cowardice shown by

    people too unwilling to discuss basics

    In the end, all you did, was to show YOUR weakness

    Andrew Beckwith, PhD

    I am going out for a dental appointment.

    Wear this, essay bombers

    A. Rencontres de Moriond

    B. Frontiers of Fundamental physics 15

    C. Gravity foundation, Grideout as chair

    I doubt you whom bombed me would be able to get in, and

    don't deny it

    I will hope you enjoy your lives, as you failed to shut me down.

    Good luck

    Andrew Beckwith, PhD

    Dear Andrew,

    I emailed fqxi too about this. These massive downvotings denote both lack of integrity and violation of the rules of the contest. I was affected too, with the same difference in the last 20 hours alone, and other bombs spread in time in the last week and the entire duration, but with less frequency. I noticed Karen Crowther was affected too. Definitely others too, but this is what I saw. In terms of position and chances to qualify in the finals the result in your case seem to be devastating. I will write on Karen's page to inform her, please do the same, maybe she will write to the organizers too. and if there are others affected that you know, please do the same.

    Good luck,

    Cristi

    Andrew,

    Peter J says he's complained in the past suggesting a simple provision, but was ignored. Just a rule that 1's without posts may get put back on the scorers essay. I agree. The more who complain the better. His rating of mine put it above his, mine on his reversed it back. That feels better than I imagine 1 bombing does.

    He directed me to and recommended your essay. I confess I felt some of the language more obscure than ideal for the 'SciAm' reader target, but otherwise excellent and I agree worth a top score. Adding to your 6.1 now.

    Very best

    Richard

    PS If you haven't read & rated Peters I can tell you I've studied QM for some time, have spent many days checking it through, and his past essays. It's a bit complex at first sight but works brilliantly. That really is fundalmentally revolutionary. I'm disgusted with the limited & entrenched views of 4 of 5 academics here. I hope you're not one!

      Dear rating site posting bombers, you still cannot control yourselves. I.e. my grade moved from 6.4 to 6.2

      When you GET IT, that my entry, in terms of ideas will be posted in its entirety in Rencontres de Moriond, La Thuile, Italy, you may get a brain.

      All you are doing,when you refuse to read my entry is confirm what a worm you are

      Too bad. This idea is going to be in Rencontres de Moriond

      Cry me a river. I hear a violin sobbing

      YOU LOST

        Each time you hit me with a 1, JACKASS, I will know you have lost, jackass

        How many of you are out there, gnashing your teeth in fury because you cannot just bear that someone has another venue to present ideas?

        What sonnet of frustration must be in your worthless soul, as you howl?

        Too bad, my record will outlast yours, o great master of the 1 point rating bomb

        Make my day

        Andrew,

        Shame yours didn't make it in. I did roust up some support. I calculate mine was hit by five or six 1's. I suspect most were, though you were hit hard at the end, as it seems were Peter Cameron, Chandra Roy.. Gordon Watson & Sue Lingo among others, also dropping like stones.

        No point getting worked up about it as it means little anyway. If you look at previous scores and prizes you'll see we don't qualify anyway (not being 'hidebound academics'!) Yours was probably also a bit techie for the stated 'SciAm' reader target. Nice you've got it published anyway.

        I see Richard mentioned I've proposed a solution to 1 bombs. If we all batter Brendan we may get some action but the judges don't give a damn about scores anyway.

        I've been planning a trim & update of my 2013 HJ paper on galaxy cyclic evolution (including deriving bars) so may perhaps pop you a copy through when drafted to see if you think it suitable for 'Galaxies'. Not sure if you saw the original & had any thoughts or comments?

        Very best

        Peter

          Really the problem is the whole idea of giving numerical scores or votes. It is one thing to offer critiques of essays, but giving numerical scores to these papers becomes problematic. It is not going to happen often that finding a flaw in a paper is going to be greeted by the author with "Thank you, and I will give a fair vote for your essay without any influence from your observation."

          LC