Good thinking sir,

By the way have look at my essay also...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....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

Heinrich,

Thank you for your comment. I wouldn't say "merely" epistemological because there are two essentials at the base of all knowledge; 1) what do we know? (metaphysics) and 2) how do we know it? (epistemology) and both are equally important.

Regarding velocity it is important to note that velocity is an advanced concept and is inextricably tied to Newton's calculus. By definition an object in motion has no specific position so "instantaneous" velocity is a bit of a misnomer. It is actually a precise, mathematically defined type of average that is very useful for calculating change but it may need to be revised. To incorporate the finite "speed" of light Einstein chose to modify the concepts of space and time whereas a better approach may be to modify Newton's calculus to avoid misapplying the concept of velocity to light as discussed in my essay.

Armin,

Thank you for your comments. I will try to reply to each item as ordered.

1) As I mentioned in note [2] my essay was strictly a conceptual analysis of what I consider to be a conceptual error; misapplication of the concept of velocity. In my view, all knowledge rests on our sensory data and I think it is a well established scientific fact all senses (sight, sound, touch, taste, feel) are dependent on electromagnetism in various forms as the means.

2) Historically the use of the term "infinite" was used so that is what I used. Moreover, there is a lot of confusion on what the concept of infinity really means, especially from the math departments. I am a follower of Aristotle and believe that the essence of existence is identity so any form of metaphysical infinities cannot exist. Aristotle believed only in potential infinities as an epistemological concept, such as the open-ended, indefinite sequence or process of the natural numbers.

3b)If I included a complete discussion of all my metaphysical and epistemological assumptions I could not meet the length requirement of the contest, i.e. it would have been a book length discussion. It would also be impractical to go in depth into these important topics in a web forum comment. However, I believe that induction (properly defined) is as valid as deduction and the idea that logic=deduction is too narrow.

3c) If my essay argument is correct, i.e. the concept of velocity does not apply to light, then all the examples you mentioned are various forms of circular reasoning. The implication of my argument is that these examples are NOT "distinct quantities" because defining and measuring them uses light or electromagnetism. It is tantamount to trying to "measure" the unit meter stick, it always comes out as 1.0 in the equations by definition. I discussed this issue in note [5] of my essay.

7 days later

David,

I'd made a note I'd commented, but now can't see it! (that's happened before). Anyway, nice original idea and thinking. I agree we really do need to break away from complacent assumptions! Mine also shows a way, but I fear no entrenched academic will do more than glance and run! My score will boost you up a bit.

Best

Peter

    Peter,

    Thanks for the nice comments and the boost to keep from "bring up the rear". As soon as I get the time I will read and comment on your essay.

    I did see your earlier comment but I was sick with the flu, by the time I came back to reply it was gone along with 2 or 3 other's comments. I complained to the admin but nothing came of it. Good news though, a friend has a copy of your original comment and I will try to send that to you so you can repost and then I can reply.

    Regards,

    David

    Dear David

    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

    5 days later

    David Fahrner

    I think that you use too strong words here. If you were more modest you would get more respons. I think that you are touching something very important, since there is, in my opinion, a very important difference between common speeds and the speed of light. However, you express this idea in too strong words. Perhaps we should call light speed a kind of process instead.

    Best regards from John-Erik Persson

      John-Erik,

      Thank you for your comments. I am not sure what it would mean to use "soft words" but I just tried to express my idea as clearly as possible. Many people have been intrigued by my idea and think that it is an interesting approach. Unfortunately I haven't developed a full theory or anything like that and most essays in the contest are far more developed than mine.

      I agree that one possible path forward, as you suggest, is to have a different concept for light so the special nature of light can be kept separate from normal velocities instead of confounding two very different things in one concept.

      Regards,

      David

      • [deleted]

      • Post #19

      "The concept of velocity is therefore dependent on an observer, a distinguishable entity being observed, their relative position and a change in that relative position." It can be demonstrated that speed of light is invariant among observers in relative motion.

      "It is a form of circular reasoning to apply the concept of velocity to light". Light doesn't have velocity. Photons aren't localizable particles. But light has speed and it is denoted by c.

      All the discussion about attempts "to measure light speed" is irrelevant.The speed of light is a exact quantity, not a measured quantity in the SI.

        Juan,

        Thank you for your reply. I am aware of the current treatment of light in physics which you reiterated in your comment but this is the approach that my essay is questioning. You ignore the history of actual attempts to measure light speed (as discussed in my essay) which is not irrelevant to how we got where we are today. This work culminated in the work of Einstein and the constant "speed" of light in all reference frames is now a postulate of physics, i.e. an assumption of relativity theory.

        You commit the error I discuss when you state that "Photons are not localizable particles". In my essay I argue that the concepts of velocity, speed or motion presupposes localizable particles or entities (i.e. distinguishable from the observer) so if photons are not localizable particles then the concept of velocity does not apply. This is so because light is our means of localizing particles and thus measuring the position and change of position of any particle. Light is special in this regard and all measurement presupposes and is dependent on it. Moreover, if you assume that the concept of velocity or speed applies to light you implicitly also assume the existence of localizable particles or ensembles of particles which is a contradiction (with your statement about photons) and leads directly to the wave/particle duality of light. This is a conceptual error as discussed in my essay.

        It should not be surprising that light is a constant in all frames any more than the unit meter is a constant in all frames because these are the basis of measurement (in addition to properly defining a local clock to measure time). Measuring the unit meter always yields 1 unit by definition, just as measuring light always yields 299,792,458 m/s as it must.

        NB: I am aware that today physics now defines the meter relative to c but this is just a formal inversion of the relationship for practical reasons. The second is defined in terms of the frequency of E/M radiation (same class as light) necessary to get a cesium atom to vibrate between two energy states with the units chosen to be consistent with past definitions of the meter and second, but also done for practical reasons.

        Regards,

        David

        Write a Reply...