Dear James,

Your essay conveys quite clearly that despite your 70 years on this planet, you have not lost your child-like curiosity and excitement about the world around us. That is wonderful, for so many people do lose it as they get older. Some specific comments:

1. I was previously a little familiar with Whorf (his famous "snow" example), but the quoted paragraphs helped me form a fuller mental picture of his thesis. I quite agree with it, and my own paper which does not change the mathematics but the interpretation of an aspect of special relativity (and which required me to coin new words to go with the new concepts), and derives from it novel physical insights, could be thought quite well as a project along those lines.

2. You mention the role of existence, and I agree there as well. As of the early 21st century, in my opinion a major but largely unrecognized obstacle to a more fundamental understanding of nature is that we do not currently have a physics-based criterion for what might be called "physical existence". The term functions in physics currently as nothing more than a sterile primitive notion, but many physicists do not even realize that this is a problem. I am glad, however, that you do. The second part of my 2-part series will propose such a criterion as a starting point for the development of a physics-based theory of existence. It will be interesting to see the reaction.

3. You mention the need for the development of new mathematics, and once again, I quite agree. In my view the problem with understanding how quantum and classical are related to each other is intimately related to the difference in the ontological status of objects in the respective theories. This difference, when expressed formally, may require more nuanced distinctions than just "true" and "false", the only ones possible under current mayhematics, which is based on first-order logic. There are expressive more powerful logics which could serve as a more suitable foundation for future mathematics. For instance, modal logic allows you to distinguish between something that is necessarily true from something that is just possibly true, from something that is just true. These sort of forma distinctions in ontological status may demarcate the domains of validity of quantum and classical theories, but without even a physics-based theory, we cannot even begin to examine it.

So, all in all I largely agree with the overall vision you present, and my own research is very much guided by similar considerations.

All the best,

Armin

    Unfortunately there is a glitch with the formatting: each time a new line is supposed to start, it inserts an "n" instead and just continues on the same line.

    Sorry!

    Dear James N Rose

    Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

    My essay is titled

    "Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

    Thank you & kind regards

    Steven Andresen

      James N Rose, your essay is a deep reflection worthy of being a prize winner of the contest, I believe that our understanding of existence can improve the recognition of the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes, which physics missed. Look at my page, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I hope your high praise

      Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

      Thank you Armin, I appreciate your remarks.

      .

      Regarding Whorf, it was my impression that too mush was made of the smaller points he discussed, such as words~labels in different languages; also, his notion that language imposes itself on ideas formation. He died too early and no linguists of the era understood his broader appreciation that experience creates (enables) language, which on-goingly is itself 'experience' and enhances added ideas formation.

      .

      Deeper reading found the explanations I quoted from "Language, Thought and Reality." Whorf appreciated the wide panorama of human mental processing and the important subtleties involved. Maybe not from neurological biology, but from practical higher order physical interactions and conceptual products ... and the essential relations between them. I have tried my best to change science's and psychological/sociological appreciation for what Whorf understood and tried to express to us. His work is as highly important to 20th century science and intellect as any other work of physics, chemistry, biology, et al.

      .

      Science theory assumes it already understands and is built on the best possible criteria and frames of reference. I merely want to suggest that that is not the case. It is not heretical to look again at our assumptions. We might gain from revisiting ideas we presumed are inviolable and cast in stone. Whorf's identification that everything (not just language phenomena) exist in relation to other things and processes, requires that we define more exactly those connections and relations.

      .

      Especially in mathematics.

      .

      I urge fresh review of relations within mathematics. For example, in counter contrast to physical reality where there is a speed of information transmission, no such quality exists in math. If a change is made in a matrix, there is the presumption (which I am not judging as correct or incorrect) that every factor in the extended matrix adjusts, changes or adapts simultaneously. No 'speed of information distribution' exists in mathematics.

      .

      Another example involves statistical equations. We described statistical gaussian curves based on review of activity sets, for example. Lets say it is the accumulated mound of balls in a pachinko game machine. All well and good. The math matches the physical phenomena. But, let's take the game into outerspace, away from the gravity gradient ... nothing happens. There is no motion, no movement of balls through pegs, to an accumulation basin.

      .

      This alerts us to a -missing mathematical component-. No statistical events occur in the absence of an action initiating environment - that MUST be co-present at all times. Be it a gradient gravity field, or a 'driving condition', such as a school examination test ... that generates statistically batched scores.

      .

      An 'action factor' (I randomly label it 'script capital G' .. for 'gradient') .. is co-present at all times, even though we disregard it in statistical math equations handling.

      .

      My hops is to awaken scientists to be cautious .. and not overlook important parameters, when experimenting and formulating math models.

      Thank you Armin,

      James

      Thank you Steven, I will seek out and read your paper. James

      author .. please excuse the typo first sentence .. corrected: "too much was .."

      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, I have not rated your paper yet. Because I was hoping to have conversation with you first, and you have opened that door. I do not know how posting notifications are done (I am new to FQXi), so I will simply alert you here, under my paper, and then answer your questions at your paper's listing.

        Just know I have positive regards for your search and attempt to show a unification relation for the diverse fields. It is a very important effort, in my view.

        James

        James,

        You put a lot of feeling in a subject that often seems locked into frames.

        I think math and physics, for all the complexity, ignores basic conceptual facts. To list a few:

        Given we experience reality as flashes of cognition, we think this sequencing of events, called time, must be fundamental. Physics codifies it as measures of duration, between events. Logically though, it is change turning future to past, within this state we refer to as present and duration is that present, as events form and dissolve, go future to past. Probability, to actuality, to residual. This makes time an effect of action, similar to temperature, rather than space. We could correlate measures of volume and temperature, using ideal gas laws, but temperature is only fundamental to our emotions, bodies and environment, not so much our surface thought process. (Though this cycle of expanding information and coalescing knowledge is somewhat thermodynamic.) As such temperature, as both frequency and amplitude, is more foundational than time, which is just frequency.

        Time is asymmetric because action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both.

        Clocks can run at different rates and remain in the same present, because they are separate actions, like the metabolism of animals.

        The dichotomy of reality is energy manifesting form, as form defines energy. Thus energy(conserved/present) goes past to future forms, as these forms coalesce and dissolve, future to past. Note that after a few billion years of evolution, we evolved a central nervous system to process form, aka, information, as well as the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process the energy to drive it onward. Also note the brain has two hemispheres: The left, linear, sequential, rational side is effectively temporal, while the right, emotional, intuitive side is thermal.

        Another point is whether three dimensions are really foundational to space, or just a mapping device? Basically they are the xyz coordinate system, which depends on an 0,0,0 counterpoint and that is a subjective location. Much as each of us is the counterpoint of our own coordinate system, overlapping with all others. Consider how much political conflict arises from applying different coordinate systems to the same space!

        Which goes to the notion of a dimensionless point, as the essential abstraction. Given it is a multiple of zero, isn't it self negating and no more real than a dimensionless apple? Obviously it is more conceptually efficient not to have to specify some infinitesimal dimensionality, but ignoring that a multiple of zero, even as an abstraction, is still zero, is an assumption too many. It would be like taking a picture with the shutter set at zero.

        To go back to the issue of time and linguistic paradigms, Eastern philosophy is context oriented, while western philosophy is object oriented. In the west, we tend to think of the future as in front of the observer and the past behind, because we think of ourselves as distinct entities, moving through our context. While in the East, the past is assumed to be in front of the observer and the future behind, because what is in front and the past are known, while what is behind and the future are unknown. Which relates to the observer being one with their context, as events are observed after they occur, then the energy moves onto other events.

        Just some thoughts from another point of view.

        Regards,

        John Merryman

          • [deleted]

          • Post #15

          Center point, not counterpoint.

          Darn spellcheck.

          Thank you John, for describing your 'another point of view'. (and I read your remarks with "center point' correction in context :-) ).

          I've read through several - definitely not "all" - essay contributions, and it is apparent to me that we have all had different analysis histories and viewpoints.

          No one of us is aware of all possible data and information, so it is good to present the many different mindsets, ideas and impressions to one another.

          Hopefully we can raise the communal level of awareness among us.

          I have a close friend who -absolutely- disputes that "time" even exists, except, as you infer, as a secondary artifact of 'measurables'. I don't have the same deduction - so we just continue our friendship ... and debating the question. He suggests that "time' can be substituted with 'energy' and 'distance' distinctions alone. You seem to have a similar (if not exactly the same) impression

          As I specifically stated in my paper, I don't charge 'error, error, error' in other models and impressions of phenomena. I merely want to offer a fresh suggestion of arranging the puzzle pieces we all look at , and try to identify relationships that might not have been considered before ; let alone in special detail.

          Much of your remarks discuss your view of the relationships of existential qualities~parameters. I tried to express -my- version of how those qualities and parameters relate to one another.

          If there is an essential 'take away' from my essay, it is only that there might be another way to associate numbers in an expanded grouping, not just presume a 'single numberline', and not clearly specify adjacent number groupings - grown out of exponential expansion functions.

          I wanted to shine a light for additional investigation. In a simplistic way that is akin to Cantorian tranfinites, compared to 'one sensibility about "infinity"'.

          It is difficult to discuss all the considerations I have looked into, in a 9-10 page paper.

          I am glad you discussed the differences between Eastern and Western philosophies since that goes directly to my presenting Benjamin Whorf's thoughts about how different languages do represent different mindsets. With the hope that there is a way to correlate, interpret, and find transforms between them. Including alternative 'math languages (applications; preferences)' - as associated languages subsets.

          Instead of throwing up our hands that QM doesn't readily transform to relativity classical math ... which is the current hard problem of physics~cosmology ... maybe a solution can be had by re-examining formative mathematics definitions and relationships between math forms (the syntax and grammar of mathematics).

          I think that has been explored in Logic, but not in formative numeracy uses.

          Thank you for sharing your ideas!.

          James

          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

          Thank you James.

          It is always informative to bat ideas around and triangulate the connections and gaps.

          These contests can be a bit overwhelming though, with the variety of different thought processes at work.

          Personally I only got into studying physics as a way to better understand society, since it was evident there are physical dynamics at work, of which only particular details gain attention.

          If there is one takeaway for understanding people and society, it's thermodynamics. This might seem a bit obscure, but remember that we did evolve in an environment entirely dominated by thermodynamic processes, just that in our more lost moments, it is a bit like leaves in the wind and when we are most sure, it is like a volcano, bursting through the crust.

          As I've told various kids over the years, growing up is like grass pushing up through the concrete. Then one day, you wake up and you're the concrete and there is this damn grass trying to push you out of the way. Cycles.

          While this might all seem totally off topic, it does tie into how my day has gone and that is what such encounters are about. A leaf off my tree.

          Regards,

          John

          James

          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 James N Rose,

          Wonderful ideas about existence , you have wonderful writing style and flow. You wrote a nice essay at this age, keep it up...

          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

          Each and every point and concept you have presented within your earlier message, could lead to an expanded conversation without bound. I sat down now to form reply, and limited to taking short hand notes I still filled two pages of text book. I feel like each and every point deserves my response, the reason partly being so that you understand I appreciate these considerations wholly. Writing communique might be limiting our conversation to a large extent, but as you pointed out, at least it has the benefit of making our conversation available to others, so they may better evaluate our reasonings and essay entry. But I do wonder what it might be like to sit down across a coffee table and accelerate our conversation. Perhaps one day. I'm in Australia if you happen by.

          You refer to yours as an A-typcal approach. It is as a breath of fresh air to me. I think the simplest way to encapsulate relevance, is acknowledge another field which has benefited so thoroughly from these considerations. The need to understand ourselves, understanding language and environment of ideas we are embedder within, and how these influence our potentials, and also how these considerations play into how we conduct our investigative scientific inquiries. It is the developing sciences of criminal investigation which testify to the usefulness of your teachings. Modern criminal psychology and forensic investigation are essentially products of these ideas and methods. It is too broad a topic to do justice in a few words, but I can generalize. Physics inquirers should conduct themselves more as criminal detectives do, wary of the risks of inherited assumptions, importing unjustified stereotypes which lead to unjustified inferences. Physicists should treat the world as a detective treats a crime scene, for we are late to this scene and puzzling why pieces lay where they do. Newton and Einstein where detectives earlier on the scene, who have handed us their working case notes so that we may pick up their investigation. But we as detectives picking up their cold case, we would be amiss to base our new investigation souly off previous case conclusions, without looking at all the evidences afresh. Re-verifying every evidentiary aspect of the cold case. Retesting every conclusion without arbitrary bound.

          Scientific institutions indoctrinate there would be detectives a scripted curriculum, and ask that they take up the investigation from these deliver assumptions. There are scolding terms that deter any would be investigator who strays from method, which only serves to alienate original concept. And the price science might pay for these methods serves as its own punishment.

          Yes it takes time to get a feel for another's terminology. I as do you, struggle with word choices, agonise over them. But you have settled on good terms, and better than I. I don't use the term of "energy" barely at all. Its nebulous. I have identified that forces are a worthy central theme, and their actions and influences are not ambiguous. Referring to potentials is also useful, but not as useful as referring to actual actions.

          Modelling thermodynamics. I agree with you that heat process is a secondary process, which emerges from a more primal system that is EM force. First we seek to understand what is EM?, and what motivates its function and characteristics? Then we consider why EM systems manifest the higher level characteristics that at heat processes.

          Entropy, heat spreads out. Which was very nebulously associated as systems moving from orderly to disorderly states, in my opinion. Then somehow from here it is extrapolated to being an all pervasive universal principle from which nothing is exempt, entropies rule of the universe. But the world is made up of energetic compact bodies "atoms and planets" which the so called fundamental forces seem intent on maintaining their form. If entropy ruled why would the extraordinary sum of energy contained within matter, not break nuclear, elemental and gravitational bonds. Why would matter have condensed in the first instance if entropy ruled supreme? And if gravity and matters energetic bonds don't export disorder, then their actions towards order must be considered non-entropic. Where is the exported disorder? These forces build the entirety of the universes intricate structure, and despite they have not been redeemed as entropic, somehow entropy is considered to rule the universe.

          Here is an interesting consideration to get you thinking in terms of cosmological relations.

          Galaxies rotate as though their mass density is a constant from middle to edge. A disk of constant density. While infact star densities decline proportional to square of distance from galaxy centre. This illustrates a beautiful symmetry which represents the deviation from GR predictions and what is observed. The Dark Matter, or MOND puzzle.

          I stepped off the proverbial mountain about five-six years ago. It took a crisis in my life for which I needed distraction, that lead me down the physics and cosmological puzzle solving path. The crisis passed, but my puzzling remained a habit.

          What drives processes? It is Gluon, Photon force that drives all Baryonic processes. Diversity of processes are simply a matter of the diverse structures and behaviours that Gluons, Photons are animate within. The structures and behavers are evolved and optimised for natural circumstance and purpose. What began as a natural energy potential, has cascaded as a circumstance of gradual and compounded physical changes, that shaped the character of the world we witness around us. There was only ever one type of organisational principle capable of generating complex intricate systems. People might have taken note of that clue before now, and considered how Darwinian processes might be incorporated as a solution for universal complexity. But in the same way the search for a primal motivator was diverted, by placing the term "fundamental" in front of "forces". The complexity of the world was also neglected as clue, that might hint at underlaying physical processes. I know, because nobody wants to talk to me about complexity, even while I don't inject my special brand of solution. Complexity dumbfounds everybody, except within biological reference.

          We share the common approach of treating this quest for answers as a puzzle solving exercise. A picture puzzle serves as a nice analogy for what you and I both do, except that we tinker with the grandest puzzle. Science makes observation and measure which can no-doubt be largely relied upon, while remaining cautions of interpretations, I might add. And so we incorporate these identified pieces but then reconsider associations. We don't divorce ourselves from science in these efforts, as people confronted by unfamiliar ideas seam to assume before taking the time to consider a supporting argument. They are trapped within their taught and repeating models.

          Near the end of your message you refer to "what is resident to the universe" "most primal". Within my model force is not primal to the universe. Forces are a capacity of matter which only came to exist but for their ability to exploit an energy potential of space, represented as Auv and corresponding to Dark Energy observations. Auv, a field with regenerative qualities. My theory makes use of this observation and measure, then associates Auv field as being the contributor that enables atomic forces. The question of what is primal to the universe that enables Auv to regenerate, is beyond me. This is where I would direct your deepest questions. And happily confront another impenetrable layer of mystery. We might have need for mystery in our lives.

          At some point we might discuss the measures of Auv which support my hypothesis. It is not complex, and the measures are suggestive in the extreme.

          Thanks again for enabling a wonderful conversation

          Kind regards

          Steve

          Steve,

          This conversation is so fun and exhilarating, all I can react with is grateful appreciation that I've lived long enough to experience it. I look forward to understanding your physics~cosmology knowledge, but have some distressing news for you. I hope you are sitting in a comfortable safe chair that you will not fall out off as I explain. It is this: you may be a physics~cosmology Specialist, but you are in fact ... a General Systems Thinker. I am sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but it is a fact.

          :-))))

          (Oh that felt good to write. I am laughing. Hope you are too!!! Intellectual pursuits can really be enjoyable for more than the great 'Eureka' moments that some are fortunate to experience when they discover wonderful scientific insights. Good natured humor balances the intensities of the huntings for knowledge that so many of us are dedicated to. The pressure of 'the hunt' needs a human safety valve of joy and humor ... to balance the intensity.)

          Your latest post identifies a side problem in modern science and education. There is SO MUCH data now in all the different fields of study, that to become competent and have viable skills in the separate professions to succeed in life, we have drifted away from the equally important thing. That is: for a well rounded mind, it is important - I would even say crucial and especially important - to be exposed to "other fields / other specialties / other perspectives". It is almost the same way that the fine accomplishment of electromagnetic civilization ... great knowledge .. and ARTIFICIALLY LIT ... night time skies, have extended the hours of a solar revolution to accomplish things within ... we have produced 'light pollution' ... which also affects the mindset of humans.

          The fog of light has unintentionally washed out the observed dark-night sky for most people. Science may show beautiful Hubble pictures of what is out there in the universe. Some people may hear about tehe new discovered details of the cosmos. But they have lost .. first person experience ... by seeing stars in a dark moonless night sky ... and really grasped their "place in the universe".

          Narrow highly focused limited exposure education results in a similar thing .. loss of 'presence of place' in the expanded knowledge environment around them, around any individual, or group. It becomes more and more difficult to understand, let alone appreciate, the RELATED CO-PRESENT information environment we all CO-INHABIT together.

          You asked some posts earlier, what might have set me on my mental exploration journey. It was my mother, Lillian Rose, who told me as a grade school child, that nothing is one thing and one thing only. Her analogy: a tree. (we had a lovely garden and small vegetable farm that the family tended around our home)

          She pressed me to reach for and appreciate totality. I can only paraphrase her original words: "It is really important, Jamie (my informal name), to see all the qualities of a tree. To know Life, you have got to see it as a farmer would see it .. for the crop growing, or the land having enough water and nutrients; it gives shade shelter on a hot day; a botanist sees the cells structures, the wood, the leaves breathing CO2 and exhaling O2; a carpenter sees potential timber framing planks, or pieces to make a table or spoon; a bird sees the branch split to hold a nest and bring young into the word, and food .. where insects crawl and eat into; a sculptor artist sees shape-able material to carve into things of beauty; the seed .. that can survive dormancy and yet produce - in the right environment conditions (same as a human 'social community of diversity'), new trees in the future; and chop the wood just-so, break it all down into destroyed structure .. and we produce PAPER ... a rebound re-ordering of the wood from pulp. Know ... -all- of it, Jamie .. the so many 'more' relations inherent in the simplistic reductionist thing~word 'tree'. You have to do your best to be aware of -all of it-, as best you can. It's important."

          So I have her to thank. And her boy friend in the 1930's who would become my father, Milton Rose. Among his friends was a brilliant mathematician, Edward Barankin, who was Einstein's grad student for two successive years (no other worked that long with Dr Einstein). And she, as a young non-science trained teenager/young woman, was fortunate to have attended a few parties at Einstein's home, hearing him play violin, listening to the wide ranging conversations they all had together. My father died early, and my mother wasn't a scientist, but she was alert and aware and bright. And her message to me, would be what I would tell every young human, growing into the world. Be open to more than the local, more than the 'familiar', more than the habitual.

          Apparently, Steve, someone implanted a similar appreciation in you. Ask questions and explore alternative information and perspectives. "Conventional ideas" -may- prove well done already .. true and reliable. But there is life-filling 'more' to recognize. Which, Steve, :-) brings me to your latest post.

          Sometimes, the old phrase, "could not see the forest, because there were so many trees" .. is true. [and another example to add to the list above :-) ]

          Your paragraph (5th I think), that starts "Entropy, heat spreads out. ..." is magnificently stated. The fact of centralization~accumulation .. towards MORE ORDER .. in the cosmos, is so obvious, so right-in-our-field-of-observation, and it is a phenomena so oppositionally counter to the (unchallengeable?) "max entropy" rule that physics/chemistry/math thinkers place as 'absolute' .. no one tries to examine or discuss it.

          Oh, there are researchers who discuss complexity and emergence... but too few, if any, in astrophysics~cosmology. (except for her the recent hypotheses of Dark Matter; but I am not convinced of the arguments/measures; in any event there is no compelling modeled way to get from Dark Matter to biological emergence). So I totally know your frustration that "nobody wants to talk to me about complexity". [Can you see me? I am raising my hand! "I do!"]

          And I will ... but for the immediate day, I will leave it for a next installment of our most excellent conversation. I am quietly chuckling to myself since reading your post. You, the non-biologist, promoting the notion of Darwinian essentialness in the basic dynamics of the universe. Me, a biologist, promoting the notion of examining afresh inner properties of thermodynamics (non-biological relations), that have been overlooked in descriptions and math models. That is laugh-inducing. Not because either of us is wrong in deductions, but I think we form a 'well-formed set', a tautology ... where you point tome me and I point to you, in support of our respective knowledge sets and understandings.

          How wonderful.

          I need to remark on several important things you wrote: A) I loved your depiction of science methodology as exploration of a crime scene. In our case, there is no 'crime' but exploring the results of events, and back building the history from what's left, is indeed the wise way - if not the only way - to proceed.

          B) You identified that behaviors~processes on ALL LEVELS of organization proceed OPPOSITE to conventional ideas of 'entropy' (as the only cross tier driver of events), so that complex entities ...of which stars are a premier ... happen everywhere. Science has so far avoided addressing that pervasiveness .. in the

          PRIMITIVE levels of existence. Most thinkers stop because, prior modellers said .. its because of 'gravity' (with the fear mongering admonition similar to old maps that identified "Terra Incognita" and the added warning : "Here be dragons" (don't go there!! we don't really know .. but we think it is probably -dangerous-!)

          :-)))))

          God bless, Steve. Until next postings.

          (This is SO terrific. The best shared intellectual conversation I have had in DECADES.)

          Jamie

          Feb 15 2018 NV USA - pacific coast time ;

          :-) you are a morning ahead of me !)

          I re-read my new post --- One correction .. next to last paragraph. I should have written : two bracketed additional word sets {--}:

          "You identified that .. [there are some important intrinsic} .. behaviors and processes on ALL LEVELS of organization .. [that can and do} .. proceed OPPOSITE to conventional ideas of 'entropy'