Peter

Thank you kindly for reading my essay and sharing your appraisal.

Fellow sailor! Nice to hear. I had you on the intro then didnt I :) Yes the physics of sailing gets quite involved. I've only been at it for about 8 months, so much to learn. But have pushed the limits on some lengthy open ocean voyages already.

Wasnt me who rated your essay down. Actually I dont rate essays down, or havent so far. If I dont like an essay I leave without placing a mark.

I like your term of "unbounded thinking". Provided it doesnt mean I am completely adrift :).

Your work sounds fascinating, and I will certainly take any comments and or critique from somebody in your position as a boon. My ideas have not received enough qualified critique, but not for my having avoided it. I have a desire to test a central aspect of my theory, so that it might live or die. I do need help in this task.

You mentioned a challenge to atomic clocks and toward my referencing the Tully Fisher Relation. I would be interested for more details on these if you are willing please? I'm aware of the lack of observed galaxy mergers. My hero Pavel Kroupa champions this work.

I am in the early stages of reading your essay, and will return to your page for comment soon. Youve spiked my curiosity towards your work, so links are welcome please? I would have a look once the contest is closed.

Thanks again for your interest and critique. And talk soon over on your page

Steve

Dear Christian

A gravity theorist! that deserves a congratulations. I'd love to be paid for my contemplation's, a work I could take anywhere.

I will read your essay and also investigate your wider work, thank you for the link. I have a couple of points I would like to put to you, but I'm still on the sail boat, so will return to you soon. Simple points but I need to give careful thought, how best to frame them.

I'm not sure about your statement

"Strictly speaking, the deviations from theoretical predictions referred to as anomalous galaxy velocity are not deviation from general relativity. They are deviation from Newtonian gravitation instead."

I dont think it to loose of a comment " GR does not predict galaxy rotation velocity (in absence of theorized dark matter) therefore observed galaxy rotation velocities represent a deviation from GR prediction. Sounds fair to me. What am I missing please?

Thank you once again for reading and rating my essay. I'll return you the favor. Youre rating must have been one of those that bumped me, very momentarily to top of community ranking. I owe you joy for that :)

Steve

Dear Vladimir

I love you're summation. Very nicely worded and I judge from it that you took my points well. Thank you kindly for reading and rating my essay. I very much look forward to reading your essay. You'll be hearing from me over on your page soon.

Kind regards

Steve

Dear Flavio

Oh you've read my essay already :) nice to hear and thank you kindly. I will return the favor for you and leave a comment over on your page soon.

Best of luck with the contest

Steve

Dear Steven,

I read with interest your views on dark matter. Please read Dark Matter http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf and reply.

Kamal,

Peter

Your essay is no minor piece. Infact surviving review, it would prove a ground-breaking work. My only reservation is to acknowledge my limited ability to qualify such a work.

I'm glad we share some general points of view, that science might be restored to a semblance of realism. That an imaginative leap might link QM and relativity, and that "time" is an important, if not the important component in unification. Your occupation will have honed your interpretative skills, and so I hope you will have properly appreciated by treatment of (clocks as a measure of QM force dilation, not time dilation). Forces drive clock function, so if times governance over forces cannot be redeemed by scientific explanation, then what's the justification for (clocks measure time?) Force dilation is an observable, quantifiable, and equivalent QM substitute for time dilation, applied to equivalent effect in relative motion and relative gravitational environments.

On another topic, I believe I may have something useful for you, regarding your resolution for Bells Inequality, and it is delivered by an observable. To sum up in simplest possible terms, you apply considerations of relative motions of 3D spherical bodies to decode Bells inequalities.

The observation

A pole or rod standing in a gravitational field, incrementally weighed as it is laid over, beginning at 90degrees from ground, and concluded at 0 degrees. Are you aware that the transitional weight profile matches the same curve as given by QM probability? This is fact, not theory!

What could a photons angle of approach to a polarization filter, and its probability of passing the filter or being stopped, possibly have in common with a poles incremental weight transition in a gravitational field, respective of that same angle? What could leaning photons and leaning poles have in common?

There is a forceful interaction between a pole and gravity, which is characterized by a poles balance and its resistance to the forceful effects of gravity. As the pole is incrementally laid over, gravity has an increasing proportion of leverage over the pole. Or you could term it as, the pole is losing its leveraged balance, and therefore its ability to resist force of gravity.

The photon and the polarisation filter clearly have a forceful interaction with one another. Whereby the filter is imposing a force on the photon, and changing its state/position/motion. And its fair to assume that the photon might have resistance to changes in its state/position/motion, dependent upon its angle to the filter, the leverage associated with that angle.

This is very simple, and might entirely capture the essence of your proposal. Summed up as an interaction between two elements whereby one exerts a force on the other, and the other expresses a forceful resistance to changes in state/position/motion, dependant on leverage at various angles.

I will be thankful for your opinion on this please?

Steven Andresen

Steven Andresen

I have read your article. It was interesting. You have many new ideas.

I find that, regarding time, I have a concept very different from Yours. I regard clock behavior as caused by a physical process, sensitive to the ether wind, and without dilation of time. Take a look.

Best regards from ______________ John-Erik Persson

    Steven,

    Thank you for reading my paper "Physical Fundamentals, Math Fundamentals, Idea Fundamentals - Have We Spotted Them All?" and recommending yours.

    I applaud your effort to look at the spectrum of complex phenomena - from physics to biological - and ask that science appreciates that they must embody essential shared qualities. Which properties need fresh descriptions to unify. My own work promotes that notion also.

    To your specific paper, from my own experience of the topic as a biologist, I would warn you from using biology .. Darwinian processes .. even the shared notion of 'emergence' .. as a discussion basis. It is similar to asking a science to discuss QM events as 'color'. Different levels of organization have qualia, and they don't always map exactly.

    I recommend you look at process dynamics that are shared and avoid subjective labels. Darwinian processes are events that occur because of agent~environment option spaces, and possible outcomes. THAT is the shared functional action options space with metabolisms, chemicals, atomic fields/particles.

    Action relations that can build Darwinian activities exists in the core architecture of existence, even though nothing at the core levels are 'alive' in the Darwinian sense.

    Regarding your remarks about 'time', you identify different events that need better coordination, but going metaphysical I would suggest, is problematic.

    I have started analyzing time as its own set of dimensions, as a possible solution. It might be worth your thought to look at multiple dimensioned Time as a better domain model, to account for all the different properties we associate with time passage. I know that seems strange to consider, but restricting our models to a single time line no longer seems proper, after Einstein and alternative frames of reference with different rates of passage or 'time' are observed. Time is no longer a monolith. It has plural expressions ... simultaneously.

    That phenomena has not been clearly examined and modeled.

    I look forward to your reply, your thoughts.

    James Rose

    "Physical Fundamentals, Math Fundamentals, Idea Fundamentals - Have We Spotted Them All?"

      • [deleted]

      • Post #29

      Hi John

      Yes there are differences with our concepts, however mine also treats time as a physical process dependent on ether. That the interaction between ether and matter is, ether is converted to atomic force. Providing a tidy fit for Guv = Tuv. The forces are then considered to dictate the rate of causality.

      A guess I do identify with your work in some ways, and this does influence the rating I assign to your essay. But besides them you give an alternative array of good arguments. You give enough of them to leave me and others thinking. At least those of us with open minds and flexible thinking.

      Steve

      James

      Thank you for your message. I haven't yet read your essay, however as my message said, your essay is on my read list.

      A biologist! and you've read my essay which advocates that the process responsible for generation of biological complexity, is also potentially responsible for generation of universal complexities, the character and complexity of matter, structure and process.

      A Darwinian process which has been exclusively the domain of your field of study, you hesitate to allow its extension to physics. You have gone so far as to "warn" me against using this approach. But I am not sure your warning was followed with reason? If you have such an argument I would be glad to hear and discuss it with you please?

      But I do understand and sympathize with you and others, for how foreign it must sound. Foreign can appear silly based on established preconceptions. I can place myself in your shoes quite easily in this respect. If you do choose to rate my essay, please do so on the basis of whether it is a well formed argument, rather than whether you find agreement with it. And I will judge your essay on the same basis.

      If Baryons do derive their capacity for force and agency from the environment of space, then we can look at the structures and agencies of matter and ask the "what if question?". Do the structures and agencies of matter make a logical sense in terms of this prospective relationship? I think my essay demonstrates that there is such a prospective interpretation which flows quite easily, and it didnt feel forced as I developed it. Infact it felt more like a free flowing discover of prospective answers. Was I just kidding myself? possibly!

      Now that I have constructed this elaborate house of cards, it should be easily tested on basis. Which foundation card can be pulled from the deck, that will topple my house? I have given three main aspects open to attack, 1. on the QM level, the observable measurable principle of force dilation" 2. on the cosmological level, the variable Baryon mass resolution for galaxy rotation velocities, a geometric and therefore mathematical argument 3. on the level of metaphysics, which explains the first two principles in terms of being an evolved universal system. Optimised for purpose.

      Undermine one of these three, and the other two should be falsified. All reasonable falsifications are welcome.

      I will read your essay soon and comment on your page. Thanks again for reading mine

      Kind regards

      Steve

      Steve, Thank you for posting under my paper, and asking me questions about my comments and concerns with what you wrote. I will copy some of your/my remarks from there to here, for continuity, if that is ok.

      You wrote:

      "A Darwinian process which has been exclusively the domain of your field of study (biology), you hesitate to allow its extension to physics. You have gone so far as to "warn" me against using this approach. But I am not sure your warning was followed with reason? If you have such an argument I would be glad to hear and discuss it with you please?"

      and

      "Do the structures and agencies of matter make a logical sense in terms of this prospective relationship? I think my essay demonstrates that there is such a prospective interpretation which flows quite easily, and it didnt feel forced as I developed it."

      and

      "I have given three main aspects open to attack, 1. on the QM level, the observable measurable principle of force dilation" 2. on the cosmological level, the variable Baryon mass resolution for galaxy rotation velocities, a geometric and therefore mathematical argument 3. on the level of metaphysics, which explains the first two principles in terms of being an evolved universal system. Optimised for purpose."

      OK :-) Much to honor you with reasonable consideration points.

      There is an external paper on the anthropology work by Dean Falk who explained how changes in how vein blood leaves the brain was responsible for helping australopithecine primates to stand erect, and lead to the evolution of homo sapiens. I hope I have followed the FQXi instruction:

      Dean Falk anthropology - Ceptual Institute - web.archive.org

      If the link is not composed correctly, I can provide with an email to: integrity at prodigy dot net , my email addr.

      It is a bit lengthy, but well worth the review.

      My essay there discusses several interconnected levels of organic complexity. Where subtle chemistry changes produce profound behavior effects, even without one to one cause-effect mapping.

      In other words .. simple atom changes cascade into prominent animal behavior changes. But without having Darwinian qualities at the atomic/chemical or metabolic levels.

      If I may, Steve, another model I like to share: current science focuses on comparing structures which display actions. I use a variant, where the activities are compared, and only afterward, the physical architectures.

      Organic animals and plants 'respire' .. plants or animals, we sustain our energy flow by 'breathing'. Usually with intentional volition, or autonomic behaviors and systemic pressures. We take in molecules, the body does metabolic energy exchanges and molecules reformation, and we exhale (give off) unneeded molecule forms.

      But where is the internal foundation of 'breathing'? After careful level by level examination, we come down to this: the chemicals/molecules re-form because certain ATOMS .. with empty valence electron shells ... have the (non-volitional ; non"living") architecture that can accept electrons and give off electrons. Which transfer of electrons is the essential activity of metabolic respiration.

      Atoms' electron clouds are QM described structures. There is nothing physically tangible about them. They are not a physical organelle. But, as a functional 'structure' the valence electron shells of atoms ARE .. as a functional architecture .. the 'lungs' of atoms. Unless the atoms give off and accept and share around flows of electrons, between molecular structures .. we 'higher complexity' life forms to not "breathe" we do not 'respire'. Unless and because

      atoms (non volitionally) "breathe' at their level of organization. We do not 'breathe', unless atoms do.

      Tell a physicist or chemist that certain atoms have 'lungs', and it is a sure ticket to be taken to an insane asylum. :-) But carefully identify process similarities, and maybe a light of acknowledgement goes on in their thoughts.

      So my remark in my first post to you meant to convey that relationship. There are shared qualities, but the high level organic descriptions do not exist in there exactness at the lower primal level. So I am cautious to not impose biological imagery onto essential physics models and math .. even if metaphysically similar and interesting.

      I hope I have written some reasonable reply to your first 2 concerns. I am not so sure I have qualified remarks on your last 3 points yet. I will re-read your paper and make another post later. The issue with constellation rigid-form like rotation is a difficult observation to explain. I will not pretend any special interpretation or explanation of good rationale.

      Thank you for your patience with me. (Plus, I hope my own paper wasn't too foolish in writing style. My own work challenges a lot of conventional viewpoints ... but I only seek to add ideas, not accuse other models as errors. :-) .

      Please do read the Falk paper. Her work was amazing and is worthy of higher acclaim.

      With great respect, James

      Steven Andresen

      See the answer on my page.

      I think we both regard ETHER and TIME as important fundamentals in physics. Can You agree to my opinion that time must be absolute and without DILATION?

      All the best ____________ John-Erik Persson

      Steven,

      The Jeremy England concept relates to your essay. It's one I used in the last essay contest called, "Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2732.

      Jim

        Hi Jim

        I recall your essay title from last year, so I must have liked it :). I havent read your essay yet but I will any day now. Ive been caught up moving house and also indulged a sailing adventure. But its nearly time I applied myself to the contest again.

        I'm interested in anything that might relate too my ideas. Thanks for bringing Jeremy Englands work to my attention. I'll definitely follow up.

        Thank you & kind regards

        Steven

        John

        My essay details a distinction, the split personalities of clocks. The front of the clock supposedly measures a property of time, but the clock hands are merely the puppet of the spring behind the clock face that forcefully drives the clock.

        I know you appreciate how common false inferences are. Like people inferring quanta of light, when it could be the detecting electron that imposes that property. In the same respect I hold it as a more accurate depiction that "force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force".

        The depiction "force drives clocks, but clocks measure time" is a faulty summation. In this respect time is a man made fallacy. The front end of the clock and its superfluous measure of time is useful for planing our day, but it is not a property of physics.

        A better terminology is "rate of causality" and it is atomic forces which dictate it's rate. Photon exchange for example. The clock spring that drives the clock is made of EM forces. There is dilation, but it is not time dilation. It is force dilation, which causes variable rate of causality.

        So specificly about time, time does not exist.

        Steve

        James

        You honour me with an exceptional message. I am fascinated by circumstances of Darwinian evolution, and account of the following is certainly an interesting account.

        "changes in how vein blood leaves the brain was responsible for helping australopithecine primates to stand erect, and lead to the evolution of homo sapiens."

        Darwinian evolution is an explanation that is simultaneously subtle in detail, but powerful in consequence. That biology is plastic and reformable based on changing circumstances of environment and opportunity for survival. It presents a functional metaphysics for the existence, and the generation of life's complexity.

        Your description of biological respiration based on atomic process, is also an exquisite account. It really does do a very fine job of bringing together consideration of physics process, as they apply to biological process. An exceptional account.

        I had thought you were building up to the point that physics process could not possibly have Darwinian roots. I had interpreted your following statement as stating this much?

        you said

        "In other words .. simple atom changes cascade into prominent animal behavior changes. But without having Darwinian qualities at the atomic/chemical or metabolic levels."

        But you go onto say

        "Tell a physicist or chemist that certain atoms have 'lungs', and it is a sure ticket to be taken to an insane asylum. :-) But carefully identify process similarities, and maybe a light of acknowledgement goes on in their thoughts."

        This gives me the impression your caution might be limited to the extend of, I should be careful not to offend physicists or chemist's fragile sensibilities? That I could be more careful to represent my principles as similarities of process only. I do take this point well, and have given it much thought. I have wanted my considerations and arguments to be entertained by others, but it has been a challenge to bring people past their initial preconceptions to then engage with the idea. Darwinian principles to explain the worlds physical complexity? People feel they can conclusively rule against this proposal without having acknowledge the arguments. Arguments I could do a fine job in defending, if only the tests were put to me! Without others engagement, I'm just arguing with myself ? But in answer to your concern, I do specifically refer to Darwinian principles as a remedy for universal complexities, and I must put physicists or chemist's fragile sensibilities aside to make the necessary arguments.

        The premise of my theory is ultra simple. If space where filled with an energy potential that primitive Baryon fields came to exist within, then could the complex structures and agencies of the modern Baryonic universe be interpreted as an evolved state, that is optimized for the purpose of exploiting this energy potential?

        You are a biologist and intimate with the principles of Darwinian process. Clearly you are also intimate with atomic and physics processes. It is within your capacity to test this idea, and or test the rationale which I have already formed. I have described a small portion of it in my essay.

        Thank you for your message and I'm very much looking forward to reading your essay. If your messages have such thoughtful content then I presume your essay entry must be quite wonderful.

        Kind regards

        Steve

        James

        I have contributed the following to your page.

        I have read your essay twice, and you receive a top rating from me. I believe it would be in your best interest to have more people read it, you might simply ask them too, and you will be rewarded with a good rating. I am sure. I think your first contest submission is bound to be a great success. And you will be on my "too read list" should you choose to enter again next year.

        I will be recommending your essay to a friend of mine, James Putnam. And if you read his essay, you will appreciate why I do so. You identify the structure of language (written and mathematical expression) as having a significant influence on human thought and reasoning. That human thinking can be largely defined in terms of what era it belongs too, due to being imbedded within a data environment of influence specific of a time. Human thought being somewhat limited, bound within context of an era. You have done a wonderful job of expressing these and other considerations, which might be partly summarized as "the unavoidable human condition, we must account for ourselves, as humans in attempt of science". If our intellect is considered the instrument we attempt to measure and understand the world, then we best understand ourselves in terms of being the instrument of interpretation. To understand the world, we must also understand ourselves.

        James Putnam realized that the units we apply in physics could all be derived from a common basis. That we could foundation our units of measure on only two "indefinable" units, which are "length and duration", which have no prior units of definition leading them. But then every other physical unit we apply in physics might be derived of these two indefinable units. All independent measures would then communicate with one another by common basis, because they are all defined in terms of length and duration. This would involve defining units of mass and temperature for example, in terms of length and duration. This might seem odd, but it is a very practical and achievable endeavour. It strikes me as a very similar idea that you have struck upon, relating continuum maths with statistical maths. That terms of GR might translate QM, to overcome an arbitrary limitation placed on our sciences by virtue of merely being two indifferently structured systems of measure.

        My theory identifies force as being the principle mechanism at the base of all physical interactions and relations. GR is unified with QM by virtue of being redefined as "force dilation" instead of "time dilation". Force dilation is a property of clock springs, and clock springs are responsible for driving clocks. Force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force.

        Force is definable in terms of length and duration, which serves our new system preferred base units. Mass is empirically measured as inertial force, and gravitational acceleration/force. So mass is definable in terms of length and duration. Temperature is definable in terms of photon activity, and photon activity is definable in terms of C. C is a velocity which is defined in terms of length and duration. So again we can define temperature in terms of preferred base units of length and duration, from which all units of physics could be defined within common scheme.

        You are a systems theorist, and you have identified the principle of "relation" that stands "between" the phenomena, as being perhaps the most immutable invariant fundamental. In practical terms, this means you wouldn't define a property like mass in terms of itself, but rather by the nature of its interactions with other phenomena in the world. The nature of a things, their interactions with the world are the most useful and fundamental method to define it. This is quality reasoning. My essay expresses a theory which points to many phenomena of the world, and defines their relations to one another in no loose or uncertain terms. That atomic forces are derived from space, for example. Then I extract a precise measure from that proposed relation, that atomic force/mass scales dependent on gravities square law, which demonstrates prospect of being a mathematical fit for observed galaxy rotation velocity. Then I embed these behaviours and relations of matter within a metaphysics, which extends a logic along lines of being an evolved state of being, toward the very particular complex character and agencies expressed by the physical world. I hope it gives a system theorist much to purchase various considerations upon.

        So when I read your essay I relate these considerations strongly. It made for the most enjoyable read. Well done with your essay, and good luck for a favourable outcome. I will contribute positively.

        I do hope we have occasion to discuss things further.

        Kind regards

        Steve

        Steve,

        Thank you. You took the time to consider what I am sure is an atypical approach to discussing the contest question. And you made important associations with things you are familiar with yourself at as well. That is all I can ask of anyone, and you did it. True thanks, Steve.

        I have had your paper printed out and by my side for several days; reading , thinking. Like a house painter spends more time preparing than painting, I have been turning over thoughts and what to write. A few more days and I will reply there soon.

        I am grateful you described more of your ideas in this impression of my essay. You helped clarify things about your paradigm that are important, that I didn't immediate recognize in your main paper. (I really take to heart Whorf's warning about language ... because we all struggle with word choices to get ideas across to one another. An immediate impression may or may not grasp what a write is trying to get across. So, reading variant versions, alternative idea word phrasings, is like fine-focusing a microscope or telescope .. or seeing a hologram from different angles. :-)

        Your descriptions above about how you appreciate "force(s)", shook some of my brain cells - woke them up. :-) I realize now that we are more alike in appreciating the nature of the universe (and its "fundamentals") than I pulled out of my first read through of your essay. Your words usage aren't my typical ones, so it is important that I try to put myself inside your 'language set'.

        Your remarks here helped me get closer to them. So any comments I make will avoid errors ... I hope.

        Yes, yes, yes. I agree with you .. 'force' is somehow more primal and important.

        (gosh, maybe I'm really already here composing my intended remarks under your essay page. !) ok ... to continue ...

        The issue we both recognize is : instantiation, cause, activity induction.

        Conventional science has only gotten as far as identifying thermodynamic processes. There is effort to model thermodynamics within atomic relations, but that is difficult, and so the models there are all statistical. Which on the face of it -seems- appropriate, because QM and thermodynamic (and information theory, etc) are all conceived in statistical modelling.

        So conventional wisdom looks at "quantum before continuum". I know that I am exploring an alternative option .. "continuum before quantum", with a very specific model. And, if I interpret your descriptions accurately, to state that 'force is (somehow) more-fundamental' ... that that notion is also 'continuum first'. Would that be correct?

        I am not as well educated in cosmology relations as you are, so it would be improper (at least very very difficult), for me to discuss the galaxy rotation observations in your terms. BUT (with some personal excitement) I think you are looking in the right place to find previously unappreciated relations in the math models.

        I stepped off the mountain cliff many many years ago, to see if my mind could help me fly, even if featherless arms could never do it, and deal with this great scientific quandry. :-)

        Considering 'what drives activity and processes' as a critically important event~relation to understand .. more important than Aristotelian 'structures comparisons~classifications' .. I decided that, as you, somewhere in the concepts set science already has, there should be the answer. IF, we throw all the pieces on the proverbial table and see if there is a different way the pieces relate and fit together.

        Force. Where is it? WHAT is it? Apparently, at different levels of organization and complex architecture, it presents as different things, different processes. Sometimes with sentient instantiation. Sometimes without, only residing as an associated property of a particle or entity. A collection of momentums. Or in individual entities, "carried" by a particle .. in the conventional phrasing. But no one is explaining -how- forces are 'carried'. !!!! And you would think that someone would be trying to explain or at least discuss that HYPOTHESIS. Instead it is treated as a universal 'truth', a fait accompli. Just model it, don't justify it. (!) Force and energy having separate mathematic terms. Even when we hint at action potentials being innate to 'fields'.

        So I chose a heretical path back in the 1970's. Thermodynamics is an excellent model .. BUT .. it is a secondary product phenomena .. not primal, in justifying 'force' as being more basically resident -in- EM -fields, -in- gravity field metrics.

        I could see no other solution than to keep the 'action question', and propose a different architecture ... requiring a redefining and generalization of 'entropy' ... where thermodynamics is only one example of entropy, not the totality of what entropy 'is', or more importantly .. where to find .. "gradients that induce activity".

        We are both pointing to the same deduction ... that 'force' has to be resident within the essential architecture of the universe .. not just a later emerged phenomena (which is what thermodynamics is .. a secondary process expression).

        You see the same thing. Space~spacetime .. gradient variances in IT'S dimensional architecture has to be the source of forces~actions. You focus on the inverse square law as possible explanation. I focus on general descriptions of "fields densities" as a possible explanation. We are both looking in the same place to find the answer. The only reasonable place left, to account for dynamics. I am dissident enough to propose that 'general entropic gradients' are primal .. -before- the so called 'fundamental forces' .. which are emerged out of essential topology. (But topology -not- as alternative 'forms' (as conventionally examined), but as having differential points proximities, and therefore real dimensional stressors and gradients (aka 'pressures') ... that appear in the things you talk about that people and science observe & measure.)

        Whew! Sorry. I keep typing with excitement. I'd better stop.

        If you will forgive me, I hope it is ok .. I think I wrote here what I want you and others to read in regard to -your- paper. I am going to copy~paste it there.

        You are definitely on the right track. A view of systemic dynamics that is important to explore and examine, that isn't beating a dead horse by staying in conventional models that haven't figured out how to resolve the QM~continuum models differences. They seem to expect different answers by using the same old basic model presumptions. At least there are some of us - using the same data - but suggesting different ways to organize that data - appreciate that 'motivators' should be resident within the primal architecture of existence.

        No more "hand waving" magic acts ... like stating unquestioningly .. 'particles carry forces'.

        Kudos to you for looking deeper!

        James

        Respected Prof Steven Andresen

        Wonderful words in the OP..."The question of natural universal systems, their characteristic order and complexity? Generated by chance occurrence, or natural organisational principle? The term "in-animate matter" hardly seems an appropriate description of the world, with its innumerable physical agencies expressed as natural forces, that are seemingly contrived in the act of building and maintaining a finely tuned universe......." These are exactly correct....

        By the way...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

        James

        I have engage in many conversations with many people. Quite often we might begin on point of common interest or agreement, but the test is, how far a conversation might be carried before opinions diverge. All too soon, in most instances, but I have a sense ours will be different, remain coherent. You are definitely engaged in a pragmatic investigation, a functional effort to resolve the puzzles of nature.

        I acknowledge your wonderful analogies. Analogies make use of the various relations between things, that convey abstract and sometimes deep meaning. I also noted within your essay, that the "relations between things" is something you had identified as perhaps being the "most invariant fundamental" upon which understanding of phenomena can be based. A thing can best be defined in terms of its interactions and associations with other things. This might be a uniquely effective realization. Maybe as a system theorist you practised this frame of mind, or maybe you became a systems theorist because you had a natural inclination towards recognising relations. Either way, I judge this trait serves you very well, within Universal puzzle solving inquiries.

        It is also the case, you are well aware of the risks of "inherited presumption", ideas and or beliefs accepted as peer delivered truths, without an individual having rationalized the evidence for themselves. They build from the shoulders of great men, not realizing they need have built their understandings from having tested the foundations of those great men's ideas. If they don't know the challenges and limits inherent of those men's ideas, then they don't know the weaknesses of their own theories which are foundationed upon them. Your sharp focus on the data environment our minds are embedded within, make you well aware of these general influences. Your perspective mitigates the risk of "inherited presumption" which I think is a trait of worth which is difficult to over value. What if necessary realizations lay beyond a conventional no go theorem? It might be that energy conservation needs restructuring to progress science. So anybody not willing to put those puzzle pieces back in play, is excluding themselves from the prospective discovery this exercise might lead too.

        While on the subject of energy conservation, I will mention. Atomic forces undertake "work" actions, atomic molecular bonds, for example. How can a "work" activity also be considered an "energy conserved system"? Doesn't that equate to conservation of work, a contradiction in terms?

        By arbitrarily attaching the term "fundamental" to the description of "fundamental force", they have designated atomic forces as having no prior cause, being an original or first cause. The question of atomic forces delivering work products, might raise the question as to whether atomic forces might have a prior cause? Guv = Tuv is representative of the interaction between space and matter, specifically, Guv space curvature and Tuv equates value of atomic forces. Their equality certainly does not rule out the possibility of being a causal relationship, whereby space is giving up an energy content in exchange for atomic forces. And of course that is the basis of my hypothesis.

        My focus on the inverse square law, which you referred too. I also consider this a reflection of an energy content and gradient density, as it seems do you. The forces that drive clocks are more energetic in deep space, because the energy density of space is more abundant. This is why clock cyclic counts increase their rate at distance from gravitating mass. The clock springs atomic forces are more energetic. Force drives clocks, clocks measure force.

        A central theme of my work that will greatly simplify its interpretation. If Gluons and photons are accepted as being the same type of entity as one another, then it can be considered that there is only one type of force action within the Baryonic system which is arbitrated by it. Gluons Photons animate all baryonic actions and processes. A useful test of this concept is to ask, what does this concept suggest is the motivator of "gravitational acceleration?". James, Photons convert their force to motion C. Gluons are essentially light in form and function, so consider Gluons as potentially being able to convert force to motion. Gluons generate mass, and mass motivates gravitational acceleration. There is little more that need be said or questioned. But there is the question that remains, why do Gluons Photons direct their forceful agency toward building and maintaining elaborate structures and processes that can be termed, intricate and complex mechanical atomic devices and cosmological structures? That's where my evolved physical state plugs in. The space field provides the capacity for force, but it is the Gluon Photon which has evolved the mechanics to direct that force to motion. As fuel provides the energy potential, which the cars mechanical form converts and directs the forceful motion. A intricate and evolved system of energy potential, mechanical forms, and directed forces.

        You have asked me.

        "So conventional wisdom looks at "quantum before continuum". I know that I am exploring an alternative option .. "continuum before quantum", with a very specific model. And, if I interpret your descriptions accurately, to state that 'force is (somehow) more-fundamental' ... that that notion is also 'continuum first'. Would that be correct?"

        I understand part of your reasoning is to unify mathematical languages, which stand as a conceptual wedge between quantum mechanics and Relativity theory. Quantum vs continuum. I have run out of time this minute to write, but I will answer briefly and return to this and other subjects later. I think the oceans surface serves a useful analogy. It is a continuum, however the waves which pass across its surface are defined quantum states, but without disrupting the concept of continuum. EM is like a mechanical fluid, which can be represented as a continuum, but also as the wavelengths that divide its length or surface. I guess my answer would be then, that the world is a continuum but made up of joined quantum parts.

        Thank you for the message. I haven't acknowledged all of its content yet, but it is a riveting conversation I would like to continue.

        Steve