Dear Peter Jackson,

I replied on March 25, 2020, at 16:01 GMT. Obviously, you did not get the email notification. I only got four email notifications despite the fact that eight visitors had left comments on my essay. You need not read the updated version of my essay.

Joe Fisher

determinancy is in direct proportionality to uncertainty. But eventually we must come out of this blonde-brunette paradox. A "Gray region".which we in part or wholly try to dodge. very well illustrated supporting documentation.You have my votes. I have done something simple on how the Human reason in an attempt to avoid "fence-sitting " comes up with logic in such instances. I have proposed.Here-https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525 .kindly take your time to review /rate. All the best in the contest

Dear Peter,

I found your essay quite challenging, but that's good! I had to read it twice as it is densely packed with information and ideas, that I am still contemplating.

I'll start off with a single question: With respect to the cosmic microwave background, where you comment "Two main underlying mysteries are an 'axial flow' and helicity," might not this be explained if we have a finite rotating universe?

I hope we will have further discussions,

Regards

Lockie Cresswell

    Regarding paradigm changes, I decided to ignore maths, philosophy and the current thinking in physics and start off my thinking back in classical physics, which I saw back then as 'pure'.

    I was lucky enough to stumble onto particle physics via a SciAm special book printed in the 1980's which took my interest in a topic that I totally ignored in 3rd year Uni physics. But thanks to a typo in a Paul Davies book called "Superforce", I had a reverie - out of which I discerned a fundamental difference between protons and neutrons that had been previously overlooked. I used my new found discovery to find flaws in some particle interactions on a Fermilab webpage eighteen years ago, and they replied back to me thanking me for correcting the errors. I have had the luxury of the last 18 years to hone the theory and work towards a TOE.

    For the first decade I did no reading in physics other than immediately what I was working on, for fear of tainting my theory with other ideas that were most likely red herrings. This approach paid off, and it is only in the last 7 years that I have started to read widely. What I have achieved is a working Preon theory, a theory of time and a theory of aether, which together appear to dovetail nicely (With minimal maths and philosophy). But this TOE can answer the big questions, make predictions, that you would expect a well developed theory to do. It is firmly based on classical physics and does not rely on any quantum field theories, yet can do what they do with both explanation and understanding.

    When Feynman said that the most important single piece of information he would pass to the future was the idea of the existence of atoms, I would modify this to include fields as well, such that fields and atoms cannot be seperated in reality. It is only in the insufficient models we use to describe the framework of physics, that we tend to view them individually.

    I say all of this in respoonse to what was quoted of Freeman Dyson. Some of us don't bother with challenging or supporting the current paradigm. We just push on in our own bubble, being creative. Some of this is Art, some science or science fiction, but at least we are creating!

    Cheers

    Lockie Cresswell

    Lockie,

    Yes, that's absolutely correct, indeed that model then solves a wide tranche of other 'anomalies' and theoretical fallacies. Even a coherent evolutionary sequence of galaxies emerges! I think I referenced my published consortium paper on that in my essay.

    I picked up your subsequent post under another string further above so I'll reproduce it below and comment there;

    Peter

    LACHLAN CRESSWELL SUBSEQUENT POST PREV LOST IN SPACE ABOVE;

    Regarding paradigm changes, I decided to ignore maths, philosophy and the current thinking in physics and start off my thinking back in classical physics, which I saw back then as 'pure'.

    I was lucky enough to stumble onto particle physics via a SciAm special book printed in the 1980's which took my interest in a topic that I totally ignored in 3rd year Uni physics. But thanks to a typo in a Paul Davies book called "Superforce", I had a reverie - out of which I discerned a fundamental difference between protons and neutrons that had been previously overlooked. I used my new found discovery to find flaws in some particle interactions on a Fermilab webpage eighteen years ago, and they replied back to me thanking me for correcting the errors. I have had the luxury of the last 18 years to hone the theory and work towards a TOE.

    For the first decade I did no reading in physics other than immediately what I was working on, for fear of tainting my theory with other ideas that were most likely red herrings. This approach paid off, and it is only in the last 7 years that I have started to read widely. What I have achieved is a working Preon theory, a theory of time and a theory of aether, which together appear to dovetail nicely (With minimal maths and philosophy). But this TOE can answer the big questions, make predictions, that you would expect a well developed theory to do. It is firmly based on classical physics and does not rely on any quantum field theories, yet can do what they do with both explanation and understanding.

    When Feynman said that the most important single piece of information he would pass to the future was the idea of the existence of atoms, I would modify this to include fields as well, such that fields and atoms cannot be seperated in reality. It is only in the insufficient models we use to describe the framework of physics, that we tend to view them individually.

    I say all of this in respoonse to what was quoted of Freeman Dyson. Some of us don't bother with challenging or supporting the current paradigm. We just push on in our own bubble, being creative. Some of this is Art, some science or science fiction, but at least we are creating!

    Cheers

    Lockie Cresswell

    Hi Peter,

    Very interesting essay. A lot of bold ideas but not so easy to connect or find a unifying theme. Fundamental randomness? I concur. Probabilities rule. We cannot definitively say either "A" or "Not A." "A" at one instant is not the same as "A" at the next. "A" might or might not equal "B."

    Randomness is in transitions from one metastable state to new state of higher stability. Such as, but by no means exclusively, during irreversible measurements. Between transitions, states are continuously and reversibly measurable by a perfect observer. This restores a key element of classicality to quantum states between irreversible transitions. States are definite and they evolve reversibly and deterministically--until they spontaneously transition to a new more-stable state.

    I am not familiar enough with the problems you address to know--does this make any sense?

    Best,

    Harrison

    Hi Peter,

    Are you stating that the wavelengths of light are determined by speed? I often suspected that was the case and that Maxwell's equations are flawed because they are based on a constant speed. The variable speed is statistically low so as to make Maxwell's equation acceptable within reason for calculations. The variance is not noticeable over short distances but is overall as one measures light arrivals from the Observable Universe.

    P.S. Thank you for the favourable rating on my essay.

    Gilbert

    Gilbert

    This was hidden amid earlier posts. I'll re-post it at the bottom so we can find it in date order, and reply there;

    Peter

    POST BY; Gilbert Leon Beaudry, THIS DATE (but from above);

    Hi Peter,

    Are you stating that the wavelengths of light are determined by speed? I often suspected that was the case and that Maxwell's equations are flawed because they are based on a constant speed. The variable speed is statistically low so as to make Maxwell's equation acceptable within reason for calculations. The variance is not noticeable over short distances but is overall as one measures light arrivals from the Observable Universe.

    P.S. Thank you for the favourable rating on my essay.

    Gilbert

      Hi Gilbert,

      Yes, and NO! A CHANGE in inertial system (so speed of medium of propagation) will change wavelength, as in a change on medium refractive index n. Which can give two independent Doppler shift factors, one rather 'hidden' from theory so far!

      BUT; Maxwell was not 'wrong', because he, quite brilliantly, gave us the Near/Far field transition and transition zone (TZ), which is at all such speed changes! Speed is of course constant WITHIN each inertial system, so all physics remains LOCAL! 'Proper speed' c or c/n is only then valid measured in the local frame. If you're on a passing bus you can see a light pulse OUTSIDE the bus doing apparent c+v, a 'co-ordinate' speed as nothing nowhere violates c!

      It does take a little thought (still too much for many!) but then it's an epiphany! (see my prev) finalist essays).

      That leads to all the rationalisations in my essay and more. (which I hope you may also agree worthy of a top score as it's just been hit by yet another 1!

      Very best.

      Peter

      Hi Peter,

      An interesting answer, which is covered by Marts Liena's essay on the aether (re refractive index).

      As for Maxwell's near/far field transition zone, I am with you on that! An interesting program to run is called radiation2D from Prof. Shintake T.

      Shintake's Radiation 2D which shows how the transitions occur for a variety of oscillators. (I found this link on the Brookhaven Accelerator Site or Google Shintake Radiation2d - I also have an .exe that I have been using for over a decade)

      I too was trolled with a 1. But never mind as I have yet to score the essays I am reading. I hope you found mine entertaining.

      Regards

      Lockie

      Lachlan,

      I just get a 'not private' message from the Fermilab link. Any others? I'd like to find something as most don't seem able or willing to comprehend it!.

      I did a very simple video years ago. See if you can make sense of this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9KIzLuJlR0

      Thanks

      Peter

      Peter,

      Thank you for a wonderful essay. You covered many topics.

      What is remarkable is that our current system of mathematic often works for real systems. The idea that our incomplete understanding of the Universe is not just due to an incomplete knowledge base, but also an incomplete knowledge structure is not surprising.

      None of this should work; there are more transcendental numbers than well-behaved numbers. Since algebra cannot work with transcendental numbers there is a good chance that all our airplanes have transcendental number measurements and should be falling out of the sky.

      One is reminded of Ogden Nash's "Very like a Whale". Metaphor and simile are bad, but they are all we got. A first step would be to try to solve some classical Physics problem with fuzzy logic.

      Sincerely,

      Jeff Schmitz

      Dear Peter,

      to pick up and adress the Blond, Brunette and the middle of your perfect essay i suggest finally a one - line - equation pi/pi=pi

      How to hack Bitcoin:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhYwa0iM8uw

      Take care.

      Best

      Manfred

      Sorry Peter,

      I mucked that link up. I forgot to add .zip at the end. Grab the link and add .zip and put it in Google. It will then give you a zip download of the program. It will be worth getting. Or you can just Google Radiation2D and then use the Fermilab page.

      I will watch your tube video now.

      Cheers

      Lockie

      the .zip failed. I got onto the site and found the 2 link, but that also failed!! I sometimes suspect the aliens are anxious we don't get to close to the truth!!! lol.

      P