Fundamental principles criteria by John C Hodge

Hodge

Thank you for nice questions. Dynamic Universe Model solves with different problems at solar system level, Neutrino level, Galaxy level, Conglomerations of Galaxies level for the last 35 years. Some data is available here on my laptop, some is available with Academia web, some data in available in some floppy disks...., Some old data is in old hand written note books.... Some data is lost....

Generally these are large files, many can not be uploaded into publishers web pages...

You please ask me specific paper, I will search out for you.

Many of these papers and books are available for free downloads from...

https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Everything I will have to do you know without guidance, financial or other without any support. I came to fag end of life.... I am not a rich man, just a steel plant employee, I used to go on a bicycle with my wife on the back carrier...

.............Your words.......

What is the link to the papers that compare the Dynamic Universe Model to actual observations?

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

Read the above explanation and.....You can see here...

https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

.............Your words.......

The STOE did this in STOE model of the universe http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648

I ask because I think it fails to fit data:

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

No, show me the data, I will fit and show for you... what is STOE model...

.............Your words.......

Rotation curves are error?

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

Yes, observations not error, interpretation is error

.............Your words.......

CMB(background radiation fits black body curve very, very well - not starlight.

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

Lets check calculations, I can take any open challenge

.............Your words.......

Other 10 observations of Pioneer anomaly (especially annual and diurnal variation) not accounted.

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

Lets take the data and see openly....

.............Your words.......

Several other issues.

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

All such issues can be solved dear Hodge, don't worry, we will do it, you your self can doi with Dynamic Universe Model without any problem, I will guide you. You should know Excel that's it. No expensive software....

Best regards

=snp

John,

It is important that the language used to communicate ideas be readily understood by the average educated, non-specialist audience. This is particularly so if specialists wish to gain thoughtful analysis and criticism of their ideas for the purpose of testing, and if necessary modifying them in order to gain broader public acceptance.

The question: What is "Fundamental?" invites a singular response, either in the form of a definition, or as the identification of an all-embracing fundamental entity. Otherwise the question would be framed: What are "Fundamental?"

Best wishes,

Gary.

Dear John Hodge,

Admittedly, I did still not yet read your essay although I tend to agree with some of what I found in your abstract. However, in the discussion with Peter Jackson you referred to a "Hodge experiment" as if it was performed by another Hodge and known to everybody.

I don't pretend being in position to easily understand and judge something that is perhaps based on diffraction.

At least I grasped that you are trusting in entanglement and you are suggesting a superluminal mechanism for it.

Such hypothetical mechanism is fundamental to your explanation of why you are ar odds e.g. with Traill, McEachern, and Kadin.

I would rather appreciate you to answer the question that my boss kept for too fundamental: Parmenides or Heraclitos?

Eckard Blumschein

John, hoping this helps when I comment on your essay, this is carried-over from my answer to you at More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

......................

Thank you, John [John C Hodge = JH below]. I appreciate your pointed comments, all the more so for bringing your essay to my attention.

Reading your essay, it seems that our personal philosophies differ little, especially as we seek to understand the nature of Nature (by which I mean reality). I'd thus welcome the details behind your use of "the Reality principle" -- I recall only Freud's version. [As an aside, re your next-world-order: as a management consultant, specialising in fixing sick organisations for free, I practice and recommend benign-dictatorships: where overthrow is a vote-based and happy (because evolutionary) occasion.]

Thus, for me, it's truly good that you are taking the opposite approach to that which I take in my studies. Since, from such a position, we cannot both be right, I see here a chance to make real mutual progress. Thus, welcoming a clearer explanation of your position (and wondering if you endorse "infinite-speeds" sometimes associated with van Flandern), your claims give rise to several preliminary questions.

[I hesitate to say more right now. In relation to your comments here, let's first eliminate misunderstandings and ambiguities before embarking on trickier conceptual questions.]

............................

JH-1: "I take the opposite approach. Quantum entanglement and quantum eraser experiments suggest a plenum (space, ether) wave speed much greater than light as found by T. van Flandern."

GW-1a: If we take "your opposite approach" -- ie, accepting that "quantum entanglement and quantum eraser experiments suggest a plenum (space, ether) wave speed much greater than light as found by T. van Flandern" -- how does that make things non-local?

GW-1b: Why wouldn't we call such events "van Flandern-Local"?

GW-1c: As I recall, van Flandern himself held: "(i) EVERY effect has an antecedent, proximate cause; (ii) there is NO true action at a distance"; eg, see Wikipedia, from his seven principles. Since, unless I'm missing something, I could endorse the van Flandern position given here: please, how do I reconcile your position here vs. van Flandern?

GW-1d: In saying that an experiment "suggests" superluminal speeds, on what interpretative assumptions do you personally rely?

GW-1e: Relatedly, what is your definition of "realism".

GW-1f: If I understand you correctly, we could solve many of our differences by substituting van Flandern-Locality for Einstein-Locality. Since all my ideas are subject to development in the light of sound experimental outcomes, could you elaborate, please: which results of my essay [thus far] would not hold under van Flandern-Locality?

...............

JH-2: "The STOE model and Hodge diffraction experiment (see references in my essay) suggest plenum wave speed much greater than light. Experiments!! Therefore, there is no "local" effects. All experiments are non-local."

GW-2a: You use "local" in scare-quotes (for effects) but the non-local (for experiments) is not? Does 'local' have different meanings here?

GW-2b: In what way do you say that experiments are non-local? (See also vF in GW-1c: above.)

GW-2c: "Experiments!!" Where might I find independent replications, please? From what you write, you are heading in a Nobel direction.

GW-2d: Wouldn't van Flandern himself say that your results are still van Flandern-Local?

GW-2e: Do I take it that your experiments find QM and QT unsatisfactory?

[To be clear: Since, in my experience to-date, I find Einstein-locality to be currently better supported experimentally than van Flandern-locality, you have here the basis for my current 'locality' choice.]

..................

JH-3: "Therefore, our macro-scale is an analogy of the nano-scale and the Quantum weirdness is more simply explained."

GW-3a: Yes, we seem to agree: In my theory, I do not render the micro different to the macro; you seem to disagree?

GW-3b: Again, seeking to be clear: What does "the Quantum weirdness" entail for you; with examples to help me please?

GW-3c:: As mentioned above, I'd welcome the details behind "the Reality principle".

GW-3d:: Please, which of your essays give me your latest mathematical analyses?

............................

PS: John, with my thanks again, I will post this on your site too, hoping it will be helpful when I comment there, on your essay.

With best regards; Gordon

.................................

Gordon Watson

@ More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Thank you, Hodge,

[This is from my essay thread, with 3 small edits: so please post all replies there, too.]

Q1. What do you mean by, and how do you use, "the Reality principle"?

Q2. Is something missing where I have inserted [.....?] below? Because otherwise your qualifying phrase is "impossible" (at the end of the sentence).

"I started the STOE development with the idea that Bell's inequality proved that action-at-a-distance [AAD (edited)] [.....?] and local (less than or equal to speed of light ) interactions were impossible. (GW-1a) That is, cause and effect interactions happened at a greater than light speed distance."

Q3. And elsewhere (as I recall) you wrote that experiments should guide the mathematics. Do you have such mathematics for the Hodge experiment that you show on youtube?

Q4. Without such math, see Q3, why do you believe that conventional math [edit: ie, conventional best theorizing] will not deliver your results? [Let me assure you that they will.]

Q5. You write, "All experiments are non-local." Since you did not put non-local in quotes, what do you mean here?

Q6. Re Q5, since you dismiss infinite speeds, why would you not say that all experiments are, in your opinion, van Flandern-local? (As to the meaning of "local" see my essay for what I mean by Einstein-local; or google it under QM.)

[edit, to be clearer: as I understand your theory, by "local" you mean "NOT superluminal". I use Einstein-local for that. Since you allow speeds that are "superluminal but NOT infinite", I use van Flandern-local for that.]

Tks; Gordon

Dear John

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it's central theme.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn't then nebula gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

John,

Practical, functional and to the point. Clearly shows that fundamental embodies simpler, more useful, and more universal rules that involve resources contributing to survival. We need to discard old perceptions and adopt the new. Create more universal models. Nice blueprint for our survival.

We share a number of ideas. Hope you can check out mine in the remaining few days.

Jim