Fundamental Entities in Physics by Ilgaitis Prusis

Dear Dr Ilgaitis Prusis,

Reliable evidence exists 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.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Ilgaitis Pr笛sis,

Nice try.

But, it is not allowed to differentiate any formula in whole range.

Your formula (1) is not applicable to any r, M, t. Especially not from singularity (Big Bang) to do whole universe. The Plank length and time often associated with the Big Bang have a completely different meaning, which you can see in my essay.

Regards,

Brnanko

Dear Ilgaitis, Realist too,

Your complex finite informational essay has nothing to do with reality. The real Universe consists 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.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Dr Ilgaitis Prusis,

Formula (1) is a very important formula that describes just one case of attraction called gravity. As you know, there are other forces of attraction and repulsion that are significant for the whole of the universe. The curves relating the force as a function of distance you can see here:

Boscovich J. R.: "A Theory of Natural Philosophy", in English, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England

What can be differentiated can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiable_function

Regards,

Branko

Ilgaitis,

Notwithstanding the enumerable opportunities to apply the term 'fundamental', the adjective has only one 'meaning', that is to say, it is applied to draw attention to the essential qualities of things, including ideas.

Recital of what is not fundamental is potentially endless, and relatively useless, unless one is focusing upon revealing the fundamental aspect(s) of a specific entity.

Similarly, to claim that physical constants are (or are not) fundamental depends entirely upon the contexts within which these statements are made.

I suspect that science is going to come into general accord in recognition that gravity is not as fundamental as currently believed but is the effect of the convergence of vacuum (the predominant constituent of the cosmos) bearing upon matter.

While Time and Space are generally considered to be boundless and form contexts within which other phenomena operate, they rely upon Existence just as surely as existence necessarily applies to something other than itself (e.g. to Time and Space).

Time is merely duration; Space is merely place wherein an event occurs. In the absence of either nothing can exist.

Regardless of what each of us chooses to define as 'fundamental', it is important that we keep our minds open to change and the prospects of making justifiable improvements in our

time-sensitive convictions.

Keep searching, and thanks for opening your mind to the FQXi community.

Gary.

Dear Ilgaitis,

The FQXi Contest is primarily a competition of new alternative ideas on the fundamental issues of knowledge (physics, mathematics, cosmology). In your deep essay, you give such new ideas. This is extremely important. Especially important are new alternative ideas in cosmology . Who will be right is only appreciated by time. I give your ideas the highest rating.

I wish you success in the Contest and in research!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Respected Ilgaitis Prusis

You wonderfully examined the question dealing with concepts and naturally occurring entities that are fundamental for general physics. Every one should learn these ideas... Best wishes for your essay...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay.... I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

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

Dear Ilgaitis

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

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 and my essay 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. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then 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 attempt of 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 a 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 formation 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 chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. 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 explain 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

Ilgaitis,

From another realist, great essay. Enjoyable, spot on and entirely agree your conclusions. Scoring it (up) now.

I hope you get to read mine which has a shocking realism. If you follow the ontological mechanism carefully you'll find a classical QM. Nobody's found a flaw yet but that's no guarantee. (Declan Traill's short essay confirms it with a code and plot.)

But if you do get to it do read slowly from the middle on!

Q If 2 rotatable spinning particles meet and exchange momentum, will they give an output; 'SAME' or 'DIFFERENT' relative spin direction, or UP/DOWN !? (is there an 'up' in space anyway!?)

Very best

Peter