Hello Paul,

I recognized your name by cross-referencing to my library. Without letters on the spine; your book is hard to identify. We must have crossed paths at a conference, perhaps CCC-2 in Port Angeles. You should be made aware that a LARGE number of serious researchers ARE pursuing your ideas, but while openly in secret because they have cast things in very different terms. Of course; I think the universe is inside-out, so your gravity model makes perfect sense. And there was an FQXi essayist a few years back with a sink drain model...

You can find a fairly precise analogy in the work of Dvali and Gomez, because your PAEPs are seen to be gravitons. This is easy to generalize into a full theory of gravity, which I have called "Gravitation by Condensation." But the work of Jacobson, Padmanabhan, and Verlinde on theories of thermodynamic or entropic gravity point in the same direction and are basically examples of external gravitation. This notion is easily combined with Einstein simply by noting lines of space converge to a radius not a point. This then is the surface onto which gravitons settle.

My essay has links to some of this material. There are hundreds of papers to reference though. See Barcelo, Liberati, Visser, papers on Analogue Gravity. See Steinhauer et al for experiments of note.

More later,

Jonathan

    P.S. - don't take too much credit Paul...

    If your ideas are correct; you should know the seed was planted by Sakharov way back in 1967, to derive most of what is novel about your work. Most people thought Sakharov's 'Induced Gravity' was a silly notion, superfluous, and quite possibly wrong-headed, even though it was Sakharov telling the story, however.

    His original article is short and cryptic, dealing mainly with the idea that quantum mechanical interactions could be a source of curvature terms in the gravitational field. But eventually people got the idea that this tied into BEC formation, and the quantum critical point as event horizon idea was spawned.

    But I would revisit your own ideas, after digesting some of what has been written on the subject, and you will discover a richness to the topic you were not aware existed before.

    Warm regards,

    Jonathan

    Jonathan Dickau,

    "You should be made aware that a LARGE number of serious researchers ARE pursuing your ideas, but while openly in secret because they have cast things in very different terms. Of course; I think the universe is inside-out, so your gravity model makes perfect sense."

    It is hard for me to believe what you wrote above and then you gave my contest paper a 1. You do seem to think others have similar cosmology ideas. But if so the material matching my papers would be in some headlines. No discussion has arrived, as physics has continued with the standard model seemingly forever. All those decades of nonsense, such as the big bang, remain as a cornerstone of physics. When will students be taught some truths. One answer is that the people you reference are only patching current models or have only partial new models, so the standard model remains. I have no standing or authority to attract attention to the new perspective. Journals don't like this anymore than do Relativity believers.

    You must have one of the 25 books I actually sold about 13 years ago. The model is significantly upgraded away from Paeps. The push of gravity is from EM radiation (the medium of all space).

    My "Universe is Otherwise" model is a complete inverted view about the Universe. Nobody, including the people you listed, have any input to this model, and there were no external 'seeds '. Most of the revelations are scattered in my 22 papers in the General Science Journal.

    Combining with Einstein and having lines converging at a radius has no relation to anything in my model. For your guy who introduced something called 'induced gravity'. You say 'quantum mechanical interactions could be a source of curvature terms in the gravitational field.' This has no relative meaning to me. Is he one of the earlier philosophers who theorized a pushing gravity, going back to Newton's time. Their proposals died due to 3 major flaws that outcast any promoter of the idea. The answers were obvious 40 years ago.

    Paul Schroeder

    Sorry for the fact you got bombed...

    It was not me. I have noticed the bombers often wait for someone else to comment, because that person will be blamed. I have rated 0 papers so far. I usually read at least a dozen before I make any ratings. I passed that mark but have not read your paper yet, nor would I rate any papers without reading them entirely first.

    I abhor the shenanigans, and I try not to get drawn in to a ratings war scenario. I like to play it fair, and I don't think I've read a single essay that deserves a 1 or 2 grade, but I have received those ratings myself - judging by the difference before and after. If I say that I like some aspect of your work; you can rest assured you will be given a favorable grade.

    I would be happy to give you a more detailed evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of this particular essay - if you like. I thought your book did have some weak points, and it failed to acknowledge some prior work in that direction, but I chose to emphasize some of that above, and to list its strengths, as a kind of general assent that you were on the right track.

    Sorry for any confusion,

    Jonathan

    p.s. - you can verify with the FQXi admin that I have not rated your essay yet. - jjd

      P.S.

      I am behind in my reading right now Paul. I'm sorting things out because my Dad was one of the victims of the pandemic. He passed on Mar. 25th, just a day shy of his 88th birthday. Once I read your paper, and I promise I will; you'll get a fair grade from me.

      Best,

      JJD

      As to your model...

      If it is upgraded from the "Universe is otherwise" book I have on my shelf; I am eager to learn more about your work. You seem overly averse to the idea that people have a right to call you on 'reinventing the wheel' if there is other work that points in a similar direction though.

      The existence of other work by professional scientists that matches my research predictions or results is something I take some pride in. I figure maybe they are the ones who made a lucky guess and followed it through, while I have the true picture - at least some of the time.

      Perhaps in this case you got the right answer first, but were ignored. But many great discoveries or inventions have been birthed in more than one place at the same time. I note Galois and Abel in my essay. So don't assume that by comparing your stuff with some tired old ideas by Sakharov that I mean to insult you.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

      Please have a look at:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation

      Best

      =snp

      Jonathan

      My goodness, am I out of bounds with my response to you. I am sorry for it. Now, with you clarifying things about the grade fog, I realize that you did submit an especially charitable review of my paper. Then your follow up was tender when correcting my miss-understanding. I expect there are worthwhile points in your paper which I will soon read.

      Your mention of the 'quantum mechanical interactions' confused me until I was reminded that mechanical referred to pushing gravity itself. I had solved the issues stopping LeSage and Fatio theories. You will see that is a chapter in my book. Looking up the 'mechanical' term also reveals Tom Van Flanders and Matthew Edwards, both of who I had numerous conversations with. Your name is vaguely familiar but not from CCC-2, perhaps the NPA or Meta Physics.

      The 'researchers pursuing my ideas -- in secret' is so seductive and so unlikely. Getting any feedback is unusual.

      The concept of bombers in the contest who intentionally drag down their competition is awful. They hurt grading but cannot stop useful detailed evaluation of other's works. Criticism can be constructive and lead to interchanges, possibly ours.

      Your loss of your father before his time is a tragic result of this awful virus scorching the world. I am sorry for you.

      Best wishes

      Paul Schroeder

        We can only use the time we have...

        I got to meet Tom Van Flandern only a month or so before his demise, and he appeared in perfect health at the time. There was a fair amount of discussion about FTL gravity and the evidence for it, at that time, with the final proof or disproof resting on future evidence.

        Much to learn before we know...

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        20 days later

        hi shroeder,very well put. that most of what we have as standards is agreed by human's especially in authority to shepherd society.so it's all bias ridding us the essence of reality.pls read/rate how it came to be here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks all the best

        9 days later

        I am back to rate your essay Paul...

        I read the revised version. I still have mixed feelings. You have some amazing insights, some near misses, and some flubs. All in all; I like what you wrote. It is a bit like the works of Faraday that inspired Maxwell to put his words into Math terms. I would not reject the systematization required in this process, but I would urge caution because many who would offer to help would try to push you down a more conventional road, instead of simply turning your concepts into math equations - and seeing what pops out.

        Treating gravity as a push is not bad or wrong, only a different way yo treat the problem. Push-push gravity is automatic, if you assume the universe is inside-out. The force of the universe's expansion and the vacuum energy become the driver. I do think that PAEPs could actually be gravitons. A ground state graviton as a single loop could lie flat on a gravitational horizon. As Eddington pointed out; the only real accommodation in going from Newtonian gravity to Relativity theory is that lines of force converge at a radius rather than to a point.

        You almost answer the essay question and you present some very interesting work that, while incomplete, has merit. So I can give you partial credit on most of the items where I have reservations. You might enjoy Carlo Rovelli's "Reality is not What it Seems" and get insights into the Faraday-Maxwell story. There is more work to do, to make this idea a complete theory. But if you continue to plant seeds; some of your ideas may catch on.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        • [deleted]

        • Post #27

        Hi again Jonathan,

        Thanks for reading my paper. I don't know why you called it a revised version as it was never revised.

        An ideal response for me would be of someone willing to read and discuss the whole model. That type of analysis could be worth some money to me. You mentioned finding misses and flubs, but I don't think you would find them upon really understanding the pieces of the model. A willing analyst could try applying the words to math equations for some of the pieces. My papers aren't that far off especially for geometry. Actually one of my published papers is in AIP JMP - journal of mathematic physics. That was 2013 and I get dozens of organizations per year that reference the work there.

        You are wrong about the push being automatic with the universe inside out and vacuum plus expansion. The universe is stable and the push comes from flowing EM radiation throughout. Light for example is created and diminishes via gravity (involved).

        I don't understand this sentence which you also used before. 'As Eddington pointed out; the only real accommodation in going from Newtonian gravity to Relativity theory is that lines of force converge at a radius rather than to a point. 'In any case both systems are wrong.

        I have some knowledge of Faraday and his feed of ideas to Maxwell. In any case if there is more work to do to make this a complete theory someone has to explain it. Clearly math is limited here, but there are no motion differences (except for c) that need to be compared. The reality is that math connects subsets of a cosmology to its parent. But a completely new cosmology doesn't connect in many actions so math is simply a stumbling block to protect the questionable standard model.

        The effort of thought conversion is too complex and difficult so few read and ponder this whole perspective. I realize you are a mathematician but might you have any ongoing interest?

        Paul Schroeder

          Hello again,

          Saw your comment on my page. I remain open to the possibility for communication. It's always good to triangulate. It helps us figure out where we are.

          Best,

          Jonathan

          Dear Paul Schroeder, you brilliantly portrayed in your essay the scientific picture of the universe. However, they did it in their own language, which does not correspond to standard models from physics. Yes, there is a standard for the presentation of the theory that claims to be in textbooks and we cannot get around it in order to be recognized by the scientific community. Perhaps this will happen if you take a fragment from your scientific picture of the universe and bring it into line with what is already in the textbooks on physics. For example, an analogue to your gravitational jolt is already available in physics - this is the Casimir force, equal to the product of the speed of light and the Planck constant - ch. This force in physics is explained by the quantum-mechanical properties of the physical vacuum, which do not exclude your explanation as a stream of shocks from electromagnetic waves (EM). I describe the Casimir force as the flow of force through any concentric closed surface around the corpuscles so that it obeys the law R ^ -2. I suppose that when corpuscles are combined into molecules, into bodies, into planets and so on, this force becomes a gravitational force.

          Insert the power of Casimir into your scientific picture of the universe, maybe you can do it better than mine, since I do not speak English. I appreciate your essay and wish you success in the competition.

          聽聽聽Sincerely, Boris Dzhechko.

          Dear Paul,

          Glad to read your work again.

          I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

          While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

          I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

          Warm Regards, `

          Vladimir

          • [deleted]

          • Post #31

          Thanks for your note in my essay.

          How does you model address interference experiments of light, electrons and those experiments that reject the wave nature of light?

          Dear Paul

          When you say:

          "Since space is the content of the universe, so the universe is infinite."

          Specify what is infinite, is it space, mass, time...?

          Regards,

          Branko

            • [deleted]

            • Post #33

            Dear Schroeder:

            Thank you for making positive comments on my essay.

            I like your essay very much.

            You say that:

            "The US remains locked in to the 'Standard Model'. Meanwhile, in other countries the science world is opening windows for alternate logic."

            No question about the first sentence. Give me name and connections related your second sentence. We can build newer platform and strengthen it slowly, but, steadily.

            "Somehow the Doppler idea had captured minds and has hidden gravity."

            Again, agree to some extent. Feel free to down load my "Doppler" paper from the following link:

            http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

            Request the paper identified as "2013.5". You may like it.

            "Since space is the content of the universe, thus the universe is infinite. It is properly defined as being everything."

            Download my paper on space as a Complex Tension Field" (CTF). This is a much more advanced concept than old ether.

            "Next Frontier in Physics--Space as a Complex Tension Field"; Journal of Modern Physics, 2012, 3, 1357-1368,

            http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/However, mp.2012.310173

            "Actually, light flow slows and becomes lower frequency microwaves etc. due to gravity. Gravitational red-shifting of light is everywhere."

            Does this really explain Cosmological Redshift? Could you kindly give me some references? I am not expert in this field.

            Sincerely,

            Chandra.

            Prof. Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri

            Chandra.Roychoudhuri@uconn.edu