Let me further reply...

I am indeed wary of claims or assumptions that a vast range of astrophysical objects are indeed black holes. But I geared the presentation of material in this essay toward the terminology of generally accepted models, because I already have enough controversial things to say. I also find it difficult to be so dismissive after hearing so many lectures celebrating the detection of black hole mergers at GR21. There is more to the story about subtle deviations in the LIGO signal worth telling, but I do not have compelling evidence black holes do not exist.

I will follow up by posting some supplementary material below, and discussing further on your thread.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

Good to see you in another contest. I took a scan of your essay and will take a closer look soon. I do like your emphasis on asymmetry.

I went after gravity as an aspect of space-time that is closely (asymmetrically) related to the photon.

It is possible we are approaching a fundamental via different angles.

All the best.

Don Limuti

    It is interesting to note that the four known forces emerged at the start with a Big bang of creation. It is quite feasable to imagine that the strengths of these forces were about the same to start with. But all these strengths decayed with differnt rates with the passage of time.It may well be due to the dominance of vacuum over sparsely spread out masses of steller objects. I wish we succeed in doing a cosmology experiment where one measures the speed of light or gravitational strength way back a few billion years. It may well result in the Inconstancy of the Physical Constants over the cosmic scale. Our science has started only in the past 500 years or so. Hence measurements on Earth will not show such a scenario.

    Hi, Jonathan.

    Einstein thought much of what inertia might be. Gravitation is also a polarization, one might ask - of what? I have my own thoughts of that, and some day I will share them.

    Asymmetry is important, yes. I have learned that also Einstein thought of this non-commuting system, giving asymmetric outputs also. The problem for Einstein and so many other is the symmetric approach is like a brain meme, the basic assumption...

    Look at my essay, where you see asymmetry as the ruling force. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093 What is Life? A theory of 'More than everything' :)

    I value your comments (and rates too). Nice to see you here again, hope we some day can collaborate more.

    Ulla Mattfolk

      You have a nice take on the asymmerty related to gravitation. Have you thought of the polarization as a force between symmetry and asymmetry? Can you then link asymmetry to imaginary side of our 'reality' and gravity then as mostly imaginary force, related to all on that side, also dark matter? Have you thought of why we experience our 'reality' as non-imaginary?

      Also, your take on the ER=EPR debate?

      Mandelbrot is chaotic, expressing some emergence. The same as an harmonic oscillator, and Lie-Groups. They are guiding rules maybe most of all? Does it makes gravity to the most important of our forces?

      Yes, I have not changed, too many questions...

      Hi Jonathan,

      I scored your essay a week or two ago. It makes a bold proposition about how fractal geometry, and Julia/Mandelbrot sets enter into physics. I will in the ensuing year or so be introducing concepts along these lines. This does play a role in renormalization group flow, and in one sense time is a form of RG flow.

      Cheers LC

      Hi Jonathan,

      The Mandelbrot Set a source of gravity....I don't think so.

      But I do agree that a form of asymmetry is at gravity's source. We may be converging on some interesting insights on gravity. Thanks for your thought provoking essay.

      Don Limuti

      Dear Jonathan J. Dickau

      Wonderful discussion "we should instead see gravity as a consequence of the remaining forces - rather than a fundamental force - and this view gives unique insights into possible quantum gravity theories and the nature of gravity itself." You gave a nice introduction to quantum Gravity!

      ............. very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope you may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance on this N body problem solution....

      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

      Fascinating to note that you too are inclined to attribute gravity to arise from assymmetry rather than any su=ymmetry that leads to strong forces. Space is all empty except for sparse stellar matter. Vacuum dominates over matter. Looking at atom itself, it too is empty except for the nucleaus to have all the mass of matter.The Creator has followed this as the logic in Nature. Man has not and can not add anything to the Universe, except to study it. Randomness of natural events shows that it dominates overwhelmingly over order. In my post on our essay, i mentioned an Experiment graduate students performed , testing Chi-Square test on mixing regular or 'orderd' events to the natural or random pulses due to radiations being detected in a sensor! We went down to around 1 in over 10,000 and more and the conclusion was random dominates over order by far.

      Gravity is illusive in the same way as it arises in a very fundamental way than the other three known interactions. Their unification could be accomplished but not for the gravity with the other three. Looking at dark matter and its interaction with visible matter, same sort of anamoly arises as the constituents appear to be basically different. Look the interaction shows a reverse of gravitational attraction. In other words a sort of repulsion exists rather than attraction!

      Jonathan,

      I swore this time I wasn't going to 'clear form', but your essay provokes so much questioning that it simply overwhelms my level of ignorance. What can I say? There seems to be some ineffable principle inherent in even rudimentary operations when arranged in a correct way applied to a physical concept, that can leave one in wonder at how it almost visibly 'works right'. How does it do that? Perhaps mentally it is no more than a co-incidence of converging metaphors and we are humanly equipped to be bound to do so, but I prefer to think it is a process of real discovery.

      If I try to say more I would only detract, other than certainly for me you have fundamentally addressed the essay question. Very best wishes, Jonathan. jrc

      Dear Jonathan J. Dickau

      Thank you for visiting my page, I am waiting for your valuable comments.... You did a wonderful discussion "we should instead see gravity as a consequence of the remaining forces - rather than a fundamental force - and this view gives unique insights into possible quantum gravity theories and the nature of gravity itself." You gave a nice introduction to quantum Gravity!

      ............. very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope you may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance on this N body problem solution....

      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

        Thanks for reading Gary,

        I am hoping this post doesn't end up looking like a big run on sentence, with the letter n everywhere I would want a carriage return or line break. I think they may be trying to get the posts to display more compactly, but it is obnoxious. I read your essay and commented earlier today. It deserves more appreciation than it has gotten. Good luck in the contest.

        All the Best, JJD

        Dear Jonathan J. Dickau

        Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

        My essay is titled

        "Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

        Thank you & kind regards

        Steven Andresen

        Jonathan,

        Perhaps I missed it. I see no mention of the chief characteristic of the Mandelbrot set -- self-similarity.

        What's interesting about this characteristic is that it emerges from an arbitrary function in the complex plane, to become a completely coherent object at any choice of scale. In other words, the global set looks like any local subset. This being so makes it the most symmetric object in mathematics. Just as a see-saw depends on weight distribution to induce an oscillation, so does symmetry depend on a compensating factor -- time in this case -- equal areas in equal times, as Kepler formulated it for planetary orbits. Nonequilibrium states of asymmetry therefore, are due to a symmetry principle. To know this, however, we have to appeal to a measure space -- and the 2-dimensional measure space of the Mandelbrot set is infinite.

        If gravity is subject to self-similarity, then it is fundamental.

        My opinion. Though I find your essay well argued and well written, I have to disagree. Let's debate.

        All best,

        Tom

          Is anyone else experiencing this loss of format? Is it my computer only?

          Thanks greatly Tom, | As it turns out, I could probably argue some of your points using my diagrams with different identifiers. And the FQXi system appears to be turning all carriage returns into the character n; maybe they wanted to replace them with en-dashes, but this formatting glitch is pretty obnoxious. For FFP15; I showed that any of several different constructions lead to the same conclusions. Absolutely; self-similarity should be added to the list. In fact; I used self-similarity as part of my explanation in a recent reply to Christian Corda. | The attached image file illustrates that variations on either side of the Misiurewicz point are self-similar but appear in opposite phase! This makes the gravitational horizon like a mirror in reverse. In the diagram; the Schwarzschild event horizon is seen to correspond with the virtual ground or amplitude null at the summing junction of an inverting feedback amplifier - a common op-amp configuration. But perhaps we can think of the feedback resistor as sitting at the surface and bringing those reverse-phase variations across the BH event horizon. I tried to add a second attachment, arXiv:1610.08518 - but it was too large - and I had to create a text file because it would not let me delete it without losing my message. | Ahh, computers... | All the Best, | JonathanAttachment #1: 1_MandelAmp2.jpgAttachment #2: null.txt

          I can include a link, however... | The paper I unsuccessfully attempted to attach above is [link:arxiv.org/abs/1610.08518]Entanglement area law in superfluid 4He[/link]. | Enjoy! | Jonathan

          Its systemic... that 'n'.

          Jonathan, your identifying an approximate time for the problem is about three hours after the most recent uploading of three essays to the output display.

          I thought on reading your essay that the item about phase reversal on either side of the Misiurewicz point was perhaps the most important thing you addressed. If we look at a naïve model of condensed matter with the Maxwellian identification of c proportion between magnetic and electrostatic intensities in a point charge, then hypothetically we might argue an ontology that boundary conditions of density are by c, c^2, c^3, and c^4. But if phase reversal occurs at those junctures it might resolve the problem of how an electron can have a uniform negative charge and the proton a positive charge without a directional physical rotation, and without counter-rotating torque on vectors. Very similar to the inversion by a simple lens. jrc

          I also wish to announce this... | Just published in Prespacetime is the paper I wrote for last year's Gravity Research Foundation contest for essays on gravitation, entitled "How Simple Can Gravity Be?," which outlines and further discusses some of the ideas presented in my FQXi contest essay. | I am also working on Supplementary Notes for my essay, which specifically address some of the things not understood by my readers, and which provide more background for the ideas presented therein. | All the Best, | Jonathan

          I continue to think on this...

          And I thank you for your excellent thoughts John. A perfect mirror surface is the analogy of a white body, reflecting all light that strikes it, so an inverting mirror is what the black body surface represents. It looks like they fixed the formatting problems, because I didn't see your carriage returns replaced by n in the entry above. Did you know that the words 'think' and 'thank' both stem from the same root word 'tong' - which is a device used for picking things up and turning them over or around for inspection?

          All the Best,

          Jonathan