Vladimir,

Every expert knows the barber paradox and how it shocked Frege.

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

> "Pentcho Valev has a record of collecting quotes that are pointing to poorly understood issues rather than seriously contributing own reasoning."

I don't judge essays by the previous achievements of their authors. You are free to express your own judgement and rate the essay accordingly. What I appreciated was the simplicity of the argument, which may somehow be seen as implying that the contest's theme has a well established answer. I think it is far from being established, but I think it is good to have an essay presenting this position in a clear and simple way.

> "Here he lazily agrees with Hilbert's failed attempt [...] to axiomize physics."

I didn't notice any reference to Hilbert's 1928 program, only to Einstein 1920.

Was Hilbert's program a failed attempt? Yes and No. Yes, if we expect from axiomatics and formal proof (1) to allow one to give a finite length proof or disproof of any possible proposition that can be wrote in that system, and (2) to prove its own self-consistency. These won't work, as proved by Gödel. But axiomatics is not a failure, because each axiomatic theory can prove an infinite number of propositions in that system. The human reason can't go beyond this infinite anyway, so this may be enough, but even if this is not enough, it is the best we can have as finite beings. The same limitations apply to any sort of explanation we can construct using words. It's not a failure and it's not worthless. And Pentcho didn't make any controversial claims about (1) and (2).

This being said, I am happy for his interest, and also for your interest in axiomatics and in Dedeking's views about set theory, and I don't see a problem here :)

Best wishes,

Cristi

Cristinel Stoica wrote: "the simplicity of the argument, which may somehow be seen as implying that the contest's theme has a well established answer. I think it is far from being established"

I agree, and this would have become evident if I had gone further and asked the following questions:

Which of the theories in modern physics are axiomatic?

Are the non-axiomatic theories not even wrong, as I suggest in the essay?

I decided to avoid this discussion - laziness perhaps.

Thanks, Cristi, for the good words.

Pentcho

Dear Cristinel,

Hilbert's illusory program dealt exclusively with mathematics, see

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbertprogramm

I should add, it only dealt with mathematics based on set theory, of course not necessarily Cantor's naive one. NBG stands for Neumann, Bernays, and Goedel. ZFC is more popular. There are others too, e.g. NF (new foundations).

While I am a fan of the good old axioms as summarized by Euclid, I question the value of intentionally fabricated ones.

When I wrote "Hilbert's failed attempt to axiomize physics", I refer to something else. Hilbert did even hope being in position to create corresponding axioms of physics. Unfortunately, I forgot where I read belonging details, maybe in the journal Physics in Perspective.

When I a bit sloppy mentioned Dedekind who was G. Cantor's alley for a while, I mixed Dedekind's excuse for his unability to provide an evidence for his cut with the words "nobody can prove it, it is an axiom" (in his 1878) paper with the tricky maneuvers to rescue set theory in the 1920th.

Having understood that the mathematical (relative) infinities are logically contradicting to the logical (absolute alias potential) infinity, I too have no problem with Dedekind anymore.

I don't intend rating Pentcho's essay. When I critcize his notorious habit to back his own preferences with again and again repeated putatively matching quotes instead of having own arguments and dealing seriously with counterarguments, I am perhaps not wrong when I recall his utterances in discussions of other current essays, maybe by Schlafly?

Best wishes,

Eckard

Prof Pentcho Valev

Very nice thinking almost parallel with Dynamic Universe Model...."The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to the starting wavelength (at emission): λ' = λ. Therefore, in accordance with the formula f = c/λ, any measurement of the frequency shift is in fact a measurement of the shift in the speed of light."..............

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... 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

10 days later

Pentcho,

Quite brilliant. However ....are there not more questions?:

Are our axioms correct? or flawed, so must we not think better to correct them?

Do we need more fundamental axioms, then if so ..what?

I think we do! to both. So OK the current axioms are fundamental to doctrine, but are they preventing advancement by causing us to ignore the real ones not yet derived?

Anyway, top marks for concision (that's concise and precise I just invented that word)

Good to see you still active.

Peter

ps. If you don't like to be shocked and amazed don't read my essay, or Declan Traill's with the proof by way of computer code and CHSH >2 plot.

    Hi Pentcho,

    Sometimes a short to the point essay is better than a long word salad. I think you have done a superb job this time.

    Let me know if you agree with the following: Mathematics is axiomatic. Most physicists consider physics axiomatic because it can be modeled by mathematics. This is not true (in many cases) and leads to a lot crap passing off as physics.

    Right now we have two axioms in physics that are considered axiomatically true:

    1. The speed of all objects is relative to the motion of the observer.

    2. The speed of light is always the same irrespective of the motion of the observer.

    The current response to this conflict of physics axioms is: Shut up and calculate. I believe that a possible way to remedy this is to reconsider what exactly is the ether (aka space-time).

    Do check out my essay. It is not "the" answer, but I believe it goes in the right direction.

    Thanks,

    Don Limuti

    Dear Pentcho,

    I highly estimate you short essay exelent.

    It is so close to me. «at the initial stages of theorizing - don't hesitate to exploit even the wildest idea - but the final version of your theory should be explicit about the axioms and the arguments. If not - e.g. if the axioms are missing and the equations are just guessed, not deduced - your theory is not even wrong».

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

    Vladimir Fedorov

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

    Dear Pentcho

    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

    Hello dear Pentcho,

    I recognized you from many debates and blogs as an irreconcilable critic of modern physical science. Therefore, with great interest I opened your work and came to a great surprise - how it is short! Then, after reading, I said to myself - it's really quite a clear answer of question (not in the sense that you deserve the prize of course!) Whatever it is, I'm just bound to support you, which I did, because I believe that without cruel criticism it would be foolish to hope for the generation of truthful science. I hope you can check my work where also contains some criticism.

    Best regards

    George Kirakosyan

    Peter,

    "Are our axioms correct?"

    Unfortunately, the constancy of the speed of light is false, and the whole of modern physics is based on it:

    "The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels."

    Einstein "borrowed" the false constancy of the speed of light from the Lorentz equations, redefined it as "postulate", and finally derived, for the gullible world, the Lorentz equations from the postulate (reverse engineering):

    Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

    John Stachel explains that the constancy of the speed of light seemed nonsense to Einstein but he introduced it nevertheless:

    John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."

    The introduction of the false postulate was Einstein's original sin. Einstein's second sin was an invalid deduction. In 1905 he derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":

    Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

    The conclusion

    "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"

    is non sequitur (does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates) - the argument is INVALID. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:

    Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

    Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.

    Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B. In contrast, the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion provides a straightforward prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation). The famous but idiotic "travel into the future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system:

    Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

    Herbert Dingle tried to expose Einstein's invalid argument in the 1960s and 1970s but it was too late - the gullible world was already irreversibly brainwashed:

    Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"

    Pentcho,

    You should recall you don't have to convince me!

    Fact is I think MOST of our axioms are wrong, flawed or incomplete.

    This year I show falsifiably that QM is similarly wrong. Substitute complex OAM (Poincare REAL spherical momenta) for 'singlet superposed' nonsense and it all slots into place. See if you can follow the ontological sequence with 'deductive thought'!

    Of course doctrinal physics will ensure it's denied entry to Academia.

    I at least make the effort to assess & score all who read & comment intelligibly on mine so hope you can.

    Very best

    Peter

    18 days later
    Write a Reply...