Fundamental: Light, the Way by James Lee Hoover

dear Lee

I began to read your interesting article and initially note the sincerity and truthfulness of your thinking. In my opinion these are the main qualities that we have lose in our aspirations to achieve to a perfect and reliable natural science. I sure now that fundamental science has come to a final crisis that is unlikely to be overcome without a deep moral re-education of thinkers. However, I very much doubt that this is a solvable problem for the near future.

I just laugh to invite you to look at my work to exchange our visions on this subject. I hope on your answer.

Best Regards

I am sure you mean well, but Eccles. 3:7.

Dear Jam,

You says very important thing: // Fundamental then is irrelevant if a conscious being does not exist to point out that which is fundamental.// From above just derives that the "fundamentality" is a category for the human, so that it can be in development, change with time etc. That I see is very right definition as it also has reflected many times in the history of science. (Maybe you remembering Einstein's exercises with the "card houses!")

I mean the science goes not on the straight line to the known target, but we are forced often to destroy all of almost finished buildings and start again at the very beginning. This opportunity seems in your essay (as I am trying to say the same.) And the idea of starting everything with the light seems to me just as a Great!

Then I can you say welcome and try to support only.

Be well my Dear!

George

Nicely written MR. Hoover

Very nice way of putting things together. Your argumentation is clear and I think further words are useless. Read and rate it accordingly.

According to your last words, which say that the concept of "Fundamental" must keep evolving, I will appreciate your opinion, regarding this essay on such a proposal

Respectfully,

Silviu

James,

As 'nothing exists without motion' I'm pleased to say I'm now now helping move your score along and up a bit (with an 8) as my initial comments (which I can't now seem to find here!??) I believe you did score mine. Thanks.

Best of luck in the run in.

Peter

Hi James

I am sorry it has taken me so long to form a reply for you. I had read your essay some time back, however neglected to reply at that time. I am presented with a delema of sorts. On the one hand I greatly appreciate your writing and descriptive style. This aspect of your work I rate highly. The delema I face is that you're highly focused on describing a conventional scientific basis, certain aspects of which I have come to doubt. You have read my essay, so you will appreciate the reservations I hold toward big bang theory. So when you write toward so many aspects of the world within implication and context that big bang is assumed correct, it is misaligned with my prejudices.

However, my theory is misaligned with nearly every-bodies prejudice, for I cant be right if big bang is correct. So I hope people will suspend their prejudice, and judge my essay in terms of a whether it is a well formed argument, or novel or creative. Which is what you must have done to provide a favorable rating for me. And I thank you for. So I can judge you highly on the same basis.

It was difficult to know how to express this. I had to think on it before I could reply. I did believe in the big bang theory, but once I began puzzle solving I had to map where the limits and challenges where to conventional theory. And through this process I came to view the conventional approach as a patchwork quilt tied together with loose stitching. And there were patches which needed adding that the conventional approach couldn't accommodate, like complexity and order of the world.

The conventional approach carries to many contradictions for me. I cant look at it now without them being glaringly obvious. I did not write about them because thats a sure way to write a poor rating essay. But That doesn't mean I cant form their argument. If you start looking for contradictions, and cataloging them. You discover there are many

I judge you are a person who can hear this point of view and understand. Thank you for your patients James

Kind regards

Steve

Dear James,

The rule that the speed of light cannot be exceeded is the driving factor in my cosmological concepts so your choice of light as fundamental resonates with mine. Your essay is informative and well written (your English skills show) and deserving of the highest rating I gave it.

Good luck,

Peter

Dear James,

Thank you for a nice essay. Your essay is a nice update on some recent advances in cosmology and astronomy.

Thank you.

All the best,

Noson

James,

There are not many essays that can encompass the bible and recent discoveries in science and find an interconnection between all. The only fault is that a theme is used instead of a true thesis, but with this topic that might be the best choice. This is written for a general science readership and stays on topic, that alone should give it high points.

All the best,

Jeff Schmitz

Dear James,

Your thoughtful probing analysis is attractive reading. It made me consider my own essay by contrast. I always seem to be dealing with nuts and bolts. Or, perhaps I write like I am laying bricks. You write more like a poet. Your style of communication has a rhythm to it. I appreciated reading your ideas. I will vote late.

James Putnam

Cool Beans Jim,

I enjoyed this essay greatly. You could have gone into more detail about the distance ladder and how we know how far we are... The article cited by Ethan Siegel does a good job of that, and Ethan is a cool dude whom I met back in November at FFP15. Fun reading, more to say later, but I want to grace a few more essays and forum threads before the deadline.

All the Best,

Jonathan

James Lee Hoover

Thanks, Jim, for pointing our similarity in thinking.

Feel free to contact me directly, if you feel like.

Chandra.Roychoudhuri@uconn.edu

I will read your essay soon.

I am an experimental optical physicist. May be we can collaborate in some form.

Sincerely,

Chandra.