Dear Vladimir,

It is a pleasure meeting you here in FQXi again.

Thanks for finding my Essay excellent, I am honored by this.

Thanks also for the very interesting comments. In particular, I find very nice the last one concerning complementarity between physics and poesy. Laws of Nature are indeed highly poetical.

It will be my pleasure to read, comment and rate your Essay soon.

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Hi Christian...

In that Einstein, claimed that "Energy can not be destroyed, only changed in form", and he raised no objection to your input of Hawking's assessment that "physical information is ultimately lost in BH evaporation", it is possible that either, as I state in my essay, "a gravity collapse disassembles Physical scale entity choreographies of Energy information, freeing Metaphysical scale entity choreographies of Energy information, which a gravity collapse apparently has no influence upon", or someone was impersonating Einstein in your Metaphysical encounter.

Thanks Christian for contributing your insights, and your comments on my essay will be read with those insights in mind.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

    Dear Christian Corda, sorry, I will intervene in your conversation with albert Einstein. I want to remind you about the principle of the identity of space and matter Descartes, on which is based the New Cartesian Physics. This Physics needs your support to develop further. Visit my page and give your assessment there.

    I hope on your highly appreciate her ideas.

    FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

    I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

      Dear Sue,

      Thanks for your message.

      I think that Einstein raised no objection to my input of Hawking's assessment that "physical information is ultimately lost in BH evaporation" because he was waiting to listen my solution on that problem. In any case, your Essay seems interesting. I will read, comment and rate it today. Good luck in the Contest.

      Cheers, Ch.

      Dear Chorda.

      This makes me smile.

      Clearly, the research work on the gravitational atom is not ended. In fact, Bohr model was an approximated model of the hydrogen atom with respect to the valence shell atom model of full QM. In the same way, your Bohr-like BH approach should be an approximated model with respect to the denitive, but at the present time unknown, BH model arising from a full TQG. After a moment, Einstein continued: OK, I sincerely hope that this time you will be considered for a Prize by the FQXi Expert Judges. I wish you good luck in this new FQXi Essay Contest. In any case, you have to do not give too much importance to Prizes and Awards, despite they could be very important and prestigious. The profound beauty of our job of scientists is not given by Prizes and Awards. It is instead given by the insight into the mystery of life [49].

      See what mysteries of Life I have with

      What is Life? A theory of "More than everything"!

      https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093

      Hope for a good vote, after you have read it, also comments welcome.

      Amazing story you have. About my quote I may have some ideas. It is important what frame you use to get the results.

      Thanks.

      Ulla Mattfolk

        Dear Maxim,

        It is a pleasure meeting you here in FQXi.

        Thanks for your kind words and for your highest estimation of my Essay. By the way, my Essay is partially founded on a paper of mine that you handled as Guest Editor for AHEP some years ago, i.e. my reference [5].

        Thanks again. I will read, comment and rate our Essay today. Good luck in the Contest.

        Cheers, Ch.

        Dear Ulla Mattfolk

        Thanks for your message. I am honored that you think that I have an amazing story. Yes, of course the research work on the gravitational atom is not ended. I have some ideas to continue it.

        Your Essay seems interesting. It will be my pleasure reading, commenting and rating it today. Good luck in the Contest.

        Cheers, Ch.

        You have shown a professionalism and an integrity that the last minute essay rate bombers did not have, and in this, you have elevated yourself above the muck and dirt shown by cowards unwilling to discuss ideas, but who wound on the basis of who knows whom and not of science.'

        It is truly fitting if you win this contest, Christian. You are the best rebuke possible to the scum who rate bomb and who act with cowardice, rather than discuss ideas

        Contratulations

        IMO to those who rate bombed me at the end, my friend , Christian, is everything you are NOT

        Andrew Beckwith, PhD

        Dear Andy,

        Thanks for your message and for your kinds words. I am honored by them. I regret for the last minute Essay lowering rate bombs that you have suffered. I always found such actions due to cowardice. Again, I wish you all the best in the Contest.

        Cheers, Ch.

        Dear Christian Corda,

        After [1] to [7], [25-29], and [31-33] you will definitely deserve the Nobel price or even FQXi's price for THE FINAL UNIFIED FIELD THEORY.

        Unqualified reader may nonetheless be confused: Does BH mean Bekenstein-Hawking or Black Hole? I would even write "Herr Doktor" (with the German letter k), and I wonder a bit how well the late Einstein was dressed.

        Anyway, those readers who admit not being familiar with your marvellous formulas might nonetheless have understood what "fundamental" means.

        Eckard Blumschein

          Dear Mr. Blumschein,

          I am very honored by your criticisms. On one hand, I suspect they are due to my correcting your very elementary mistakes in previous FQXi Essay Contests. On the other hand, I think they are also due to envy, because you will ever publish papers like [1] to [7], [25-29], and [31-33] neither in the reality nor in your dreams... In any case, I am always very happy to receive criticisms by anti-relativity guys like you. I received the same criticisms by your friends in anti-relativity claims, like Mr. Crothers, Mr. Santilli and others, and I always ridiculed them. Here, you ridicule yourself. By the way, I think that you need an ophthalmologist, because I wrote in line 11 of page 1 of my Essay that BH is the acronym of black hole... I also wrote "Herr Doktor" (with the German letter k) 3 times while I wrote "Herr Doctor" (with the English letter c) only one time. I think that a typo is permitted in this Essay Contest... I do not know if those readers who admit not being familiar with my marvellous formulas might nonetheless have understood what "fundamental" means. I am instead sure that you do not understand what "fundamental" means and, in addition, that you do not understand an enormous number of other thinks... Finally, I suspect that you are the gentleman who lowered my score by giving me "1". Relax, I will neither apply the same favor to you, nor signal to FQXi this squalid issue. In fact, I wasted even too much time with a poor man like you... I pity you.

          Sincerely, Christian Corda

          Dear Christian, with the final moments of the community phase upon us you are again top of the ratings. Will the panel be able to deny you a prize again, despite a recommendation from the great master himself? We shall see, but whatever the result it is good that you have addressed the matter with a sense of humour.

          On the science side I do like your Bohr atom analogy for black holes. Treating the QNMs as similar to electrons seems like a smart move, and you have worked out the idea in impressive detail. Such work should not be ignored.

          Your Hawking quote about the information being effectively lost, while unitarity holds caught my eye. Perhaps we have been taking the word information too literally. This kind of information is more like scrambled data that can never be unscrambled. It would be better described as randomness than information. I have a motto that the universe does not care what we think. In this case it does not care if we cannot access the information. As entropy rises usable information degenerates into the heat bath, or the black hole. Evolution, life and our struggles to understand the universe are our fight to hold onto meaningful information. The amount of information we gather, organise and record temporarily is tiny compared to what is being lost to randomness by the heat of our efforts, yet it is everything to us.

          Good luck. I hope this time round will bring you a well-deserved and overdue prize.

            An enjoyable read, Christian

            I like your discussion with AE and had to laugh when the Unified Field Theory fades before you can read it (I doubt we are anywhere close to such a theory).

            A couple questions:

            1) If a BH works like an atom and electrons, should there be a 'spectra' of this? I mean like the spectral lines of hydrogen? Could this be verified?

            2) Would you say that a BH changes its size in quantum jumps? It would seem, given the analogy provided, that these are not 'tiny' jumps at the particle level, but rather possibly measurable in large units. If so, the question comes up as to how discrete jumps can exist in an otherwise continuous spacetime - or rather how does the 'jump' occur without a continuous change in dimension?

            In a different direction, what can be stated about all levels of scale in a BH, between those at the large, BH, scale and those of the quantum particle scale? Do all these other levels not exist, not have any impact on the BH structure, or have we simply not addressed them yet?

            Again, a very enjoyable read,

            Don

            Dear Christian Corda,

            I understand your angry reaction as an indication of lacking readiness to accept I might be right when I felt your self-admiration inappropriate among scientists. A good teacher intends teaching as easily understandable as possible.

            I ask you to guess: Why did my boss blame a paper of mine as "sowas von" fundamental?

            You claimed having proved me wrong in previous contests. Can you please give at least some examples for this? Fortunately FQXi documented all discussions.

            What about publishing, I too am a little biased in so far, I tend to not expect accepted work in viXra and Academia. I also refused publishing in GS Journal.

            Being not an "anti-relativity boy", I am nonetheless open for hints that may guide to a revelation of possible flaws in non-causal and tenseless models.

            With sympathy,

            Eckard Blumschein