Structure in Reality by Hans van Leunen

Dear Hans,

Thank you for your reply...

...............Your observation...............

Most of these claims require the support of a foundation from which these claims can be derived.

Most claims are quite a high level. It will be a hell of a job to derive them from fundamentals.

.............. Reply..........

They are not claims, they are sort of assumptions of Dynamic Universe Model.... Based physical observational data in the universe

................your observation..........

The gravitation field represents our living space. It is coupled to the electromagnetic field via the geometric centers of the platforms on which the elementary particles reside. The two fields differ fundamentally in their start and boundary conditions. Still, they both obey the same basic differential equations.

Our living space embeds the elementary particles and this embedding deforms our living space. The elementary particles inherit their electric charges, color charges and spin from the platform on which they reside.

Since the platforms couple the two fields in a very intimate way the "electromagnetic radiation DOES NOT PASS grazingly near gravitating mass".

.............. Reply..........

Why not, Many experiments were conducted alredy for the last 100 years....You are confusing probably, Shall I say Light rays?

................your observation..........

Elementary particles are elementary modules. Together they constitute all other modules that exist in the universe. Some of the modules constitute modular systems.

.............. Reply..........

I did not understand your point.... Please clarify....

Best

=snp

Dear Hans

Dynamic Universe Model is totally based on experimental results or observations only.... They are not claims, based on observations.... any one can verify....

Predictions are on mathematically derived.... Many came true, This one is new...

Best

=snp

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 must consist 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

Hans,

I do hope you may look at my complex sequence and advise if you think quaternions may apply & help express it. (It's rather like Diracs QM equation with 2 pairs orthogonally inverse).

Yes I still enjoy student interaction. In August with a Delft student crew I won a Race from UK to France, discussing physics much of the way, and the 6 inertial frames we were dealing with (4 evolving); Earth-centric, Sea Bed, Water, Ambient Air ('wind'), accelerated air flow, Boat. 'Apparent Wind' is a critical concept.

I assume you can't reconcile Alan Kadin's 'no Hilbert Space' comment?

Very best

Peter

Good to hear from you again Hans!

Interesting - and short - read. I agree that a discussion (only) of fundamentals should be kept short!

I see that you are still very interested in Hilbert's work (e.g. Hilbert's Program) and of course Hilbert Space. I once gave a talk at MathFest 2011 on this general subject. I must then point out that his definition of completeness is not considerable, but that "consistency" is crucial. So in many ways we must consider Takeuti's proof that a consistent mathematical system must be finitary.

This opens up the discussion to include representation theory.

It is not at all clear to me what sort of finite particle a quaternion algebra might represent, though. And whether the formulation (or geometry) is causal. But it is clear that the No-Boundary Wave Function is causal and its variables easily assigned to finite-geometric metrics.

Feel free to investigate these fundamental ideas further

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092

best,

Wayne

Hans,

You cogently and economically describe a "Structure in Reality." You paint a vivid picture of a creator leaving us alone in the words: "After the creation, the creator leaves his creatures alone." My concern is that those elementary particles we have discovered might not include dark matter and dark energy, that is if they really exist. I like the way you have concisely put together this imagined dynamic creation on a bed of Hilbert space. Worthy of a good score.

Good luck.

Jim Hoover

"The requirement that experiments must verify everything is sound-ready crap. Much of the physical reality is inaccessible to measurement. In that case, deduction remains the only way of approach."

I agree, this is undoubtedly true although many people find it more convenient to deny it. Thanks for an excellent essay. My only criticism is that it is a little too short.

Dear Hans,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

It is so close to me. «From the ground up. The other way suggests the existence of a potential candidate for the foundation of physical reality. The method supposes that this foundation has such a simple structure that intelligent people have already added this structure as an interesting structure to the list of discovered structures. For them, there existed no need to seek the foundation of reality».

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Dear Hans, ...(copied to your and mine)

Thank you very much for your attention and explanations.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Hans,

I hope you get to read and comment on mine as I did yours. I'd value your assessment, but if you do so please read the last half carefully to reconstruct the classical mechanism.

I generally manage to ensure I assess & score all who do so on mine. Hope yours get into the finalist group.

Very best.

Peter

Hans,

Thanks for your post on mine, though you diodn't comment on the main classic QM finding.

I replied as follows;

Hans,

Does the orthomodular lattice of quantum logic not share the same simple construction as the rules of brackets in Arithmetic and my argument for discrete field in realtivity, in my (scored top) 2015 'Red/Green sock trick' essay?

Peter