Dear Peter Jackson, I read your informative essay and I completely agree with you that rotational movement, i.e. vortices play a major role in the appearance of mass in corpuscles. To the question, what moves? I answer - space moves relative to itself. Copernicus, when he noticed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, lost sight of the fact that with it all the solar space revolves around it.

聽聽聽聽聽聽I invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes' space and matter: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich ". At the very beginning of the essay, I repeat twice the idea that rectilinear motion, in essence, is a motion around a circle of infinitely large radius and, if this radius is reduced, then in infinitesimal laws of motion according to the theory of relativity will go over to the laws of quantum mechanics.

Next come mathematical formulas that only spoil my essay, but without them in any way. I will be pleased if you catch their main meaning and bless me for the further generalization of modern physics. I give high ratings to those who visit my page and leave her comment on it regarding the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, even if they did not agree.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

    Peter,

    you did not take into account the most important finding in my work. It is quite easy. E=hf is wrong and to correct that the definition of time must be changed to

    1 meter = distance a photon travels in x seconds

    1 second = duration a photon need to travel 1/x meter

    With this, 100% (all = every single bit of "Data" you are talking about is wrong.

    Every of your observation then is wrong.

    I am explaining that sincs a year and i am sure some people in the world did understand that.

    There is no stange thing about that, because the definition of time with a caesium atom is strange. Well they do it since 2000 years now, as no one listened to Jesus and they nailed him on a cross because they don't wanted to see reality. But someday realitiy will come to catch us (actually reality now arrived)

    Take care

    Manfred

    Dear Peter Jackson, with your comment you have lifted my mood. I had a hope that our path in science would leave at least some trace and that scientists would pay attention to the fact that space is matter, and matter is space that moves, since it is matter. It is motion that turns space into observable matter - substance. The rotational motion of space is the most energetically favorable motion in comparison with a rectilinear motion. In order to force a space, for example, a body, to move rectilinearly, it is necessary to expend infinitely large energy, i.e. inertial systems do not exist. Their existence can only be talked about in infinitesimal dimensions, which are realized in quantum mechanics.

    Peter, I wish you success in your scientific research and become one of the winners of this competition.

    Regards, Boris Dzhechko

    5 days later

    My thoughts are that eventually we might conclude that everything and everyone is a parallel universe and the mathematics that might connect all these multiverses probability might be quantum mechanical. Our sociology, biology and many such endeavors might benefit if the society transitions to these higher dimensional information processes. With digitalization these transitioned cultures might successfully eliminate frictions in interactions to make humanity closer to divinity than ever in the past.

    Dear Peter

    Nice essay you have written, quite illuminating. I must confess that I have never entertained the idea that statements are provisional and metaphysical. I think you are right about this. We put these idealizations on a top level, in a level of perfection and take them as reference. We talk about the infinite but in reality we do not measure infinities, similarly, we talk about identity although things are not identical. So, the logical laws are mere metaphysical statements living in the realm of perfection. To be more realistic, it would be more correct to say that something is similar or approximately equal to something else. I am still digesting all of this. Good contribution to the contest!

    Good luck!

    Israel

      Thanks Boris, but the judges have long made it clear John Templeton's aims are forgotten and nothing advancing doctrinal paradigms or our understanding of nature will be entertained! Peer pressure I suppose.

      Yes, I agree there is no entirely rectilinear motion in the universe. Light has a notionally linear 'optical axis', but only within moving systems, so not 'real' and also non-linear with respect to all other systems.

      Very best of luck to yours.

      Peter

      Thanks Israel,

      I was confident you'd comprehend what so many don't and dismiss due to cognitive dissonance (or 'beliefs'). Lawrence's responses for instance typify that. But it's the implications of those new foundations that most important for understanding. Following those is indeed hard.

      Well done for yours to.

      Peter

      Hi Peter,

      Thank you are reading my essay. I appreciate your comments.

      It took me a while to read yours. There is a lot there. Clearly you are challenged by uniting QM and classical physics. This is a very worthwhile endeavor and at the heart of the un-decidability essay. I didn't know there was a logic discussion connected to the excluded middle. As you point out things are not black and white. Probabilities and distributions are important in any system that interacts and shares properties. Thermodynamics and fluid dynamics are examples you use. QM has been different especially when it comes to electromagnetic states that occur in jumps. If, as you do, believe that there is a ubiquitous Higgs Condensate consisting of virtual particles, it seems logical that there would be distributions across all classical and QM states. I was a little skeptical about how this fluid would produce the gravitational potential. Gravity is known to be very long range. I could understand how it might surround bodies, perhaps similar to SR curved space, but the LIGO results show that the pulse travels at C. This might challenge a theory based on fluids (my thought here is that fluids interact locally at the speed of sound). Overall a well thought out on point essay.

      I noted that many essays are saying that no Unified Theory is possible. But yours, mine, Dr. Kadin's and a couple of others haven't given up. After reading several essays I was concerned that we are working on different problems. Do we really agree on what the requirements are? I spent a couple of days proposing a set of requirements. It is posted under my essay and I reviewed some my own work. If you have time, I would appreciate your thoughts.

        Thanks Gene,

        All fluctuations in the condensate (only a 'fluid' to the extent that air is) will indeed propagate at c. The 'range' of the condensate density gradient is also proportionally the same as a low pressure weather system, so near infinite. But these (dark energy) 'particles' aren't 'virtual', just small so below the scale that 'couples with' it's EM waves (the fermion pair).

        Yes, most seem to have 'given up' on improving our understanding of nature. We're a small minority! But indeed we are approaching from different directions. That may be a good thing as we might surround the mountain of truth so it can't escape! But yes we should check we're surrounding the same mountain and our approaches are compatible, even co-ordinated.

        I'v found getting dissidents to agree on anything is like herding cats, but again that can be an advantage as we all have different strengths. Perhaps even the magnificent 7! I'll take a look over on your string. I still have to apply your (top!) score anyway, which we all seem to need after being hit by the 1.0 trolling more than once!

        Peter

        PS; I look at it not so much as 'uniting' QM...etc, more identifying the errors or omissions in EACH theory that keep them from coherently DESCRIBING the true simple beauty of nature.

        Hi Peter...

        I have read your paper, and the comments to it.

        Perhaps the turning of the tide can be attributed to NASA's posting photos of Black Holes emitting "stuff"... REF: https://gadgets.ndtv.com/science/news/nasa-ophiuchus-supermassive-black-hole-explosion-spotted-chandra-2187385 ... but I like to think FQXi as an open channel for thoughtful critical analysis, by you and a growing number of others, has provided impetus for a temporally critical paradigm shift, and I am delighted to see that the turning tide, has focused your thoughtful analysis on the potential for compliance to a visual structural/geometry, to resolve dysfunctional standard model Energy emergence mathematics.

        Your ability to do so, in language/semantics relevant to eliminating obvious flaws in the standard model, will alleviate the academic communities' fears that a paradigm shift could "shatter our entire world-view."~ Robert Wilson Essay~ is greatly appreciated... i.e. better you than me.

        Language/semantics is one of the major transitional issues that must be addressed to advance the "world-view"... REF: - "Energy Terminology Dysfunction" www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSETermDys.php ... if application is going to overcome dysfunctionality of current "world view", in a timely manner.

        REF: s. Lingo Essay Topic: "Modeling Universal Intelligence"

        One must define PHYSICAL in order to differentiate it from OTHER THAN PHYSICAL... i.e. Meta-PHYSICAL.

        PHYSICAL entities defined in terms of what?... spatial occupancy??

        In that the Discrete Field Model (DFM) "suggests an initial physical architecture on which to base modified mathematics", is spatial occupancy a PHYSICAL entity, or a Meta-PHYSICAL concept?

        If one can graphically illustrate a theoretical concept... e.g. a spatial unit of occupancy... one can formulate conceptual emergence in terms of multiple copies of symbolic visual representations... i.e. icons... of the PHYSICAL entity, without necessity for interpretive language/semantics ... i.e. Meta-Symbolic representations of the unseen.

        Does DFM facilitate multiple minimum/indivisible PHYSICAL entities defined by a single spatial uniform unit of occupancy?... i.e. the "ether" as a unified unit spatial field quantization model of minimum/indivisible spatial occupancy (QI)??

        Resolve of a geometry/architecture that facilitates a pulsed point source emission and subsequent distribution of minimum/indivisible Quanta of Energy (QE), inherently generates a unified unit spatial field quantization model.

        Is motion a Meta-PHYSICAL concept?

        The concept of "3D physical bounded Spaces in motion" is not equivalent to the concept of minimum/indivisible PHYSICAL entities (QE) in motion within 3D PHYSICAL bounded Spaces.

        Digital symbolic visual representations of a PHYSICAL entity within a valid 3D Space-Time structural/geometry... i.e. CAD/SIM Environment... facilitates emergent formulation... i.e. applied coded intelligence... of spatially defined minimum/indivisible units of Energy (QE), and can enhance "intelligence and in particular physical dynamic visualization skills.".

        Emergence of Space-Time Energy, as Causal Intent, and Q-Tick pulsed QE distribution mechanix/mathematics, based on the geometry/architecture of a valid unified unit spatial field quantization model... i.e. point source geometry resolve... facilitates definition of substance... i.e. a PHYSICAL entity...in terms of its spatial occupancy.. which can be anywhere, but not necessarily "everywhere"... i.e. dark matter as unoccupied QI.

        Thanks Peter!!!... a hard job well done... I will rate accordingly.

        Sue Lingo

        UQS Author/Logician

        www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

          Thanks Sue,

          Perceptive as usual. Good to see you back. My score just dropped 4 points! I expect yet another trolls 1.0 score. Did you score it yet?

          Answers;

          1. PHYSICAL entities defined in terms of what?... spatial occupancy?? That sounds ok, or it's as I define of condensed matter. A "rotation" big enough to 'couple with' EM fluctuations, so using non-zero space.

          2. "Aether". The entities coupling with EM are Majorana free fermion +/- 'pair' dark matter.('space plasma). It's THAT which modulates c LOCALLY on re-emissions, but only at BOUNDARIES to areas of; The "CONDENSATE" which is 'dark energy' but does NOT do the assumed job of the old 'aether' it just the 'stuff of' the fluctuations.

          3. "Is motion a Meta-PHYSICAL concept?. Good question. Arguable. It's a (local, relative) "concept" but requires PHYSICAL entities, to exist so is a measurable property of them. It's more fundamental so transcends the definitions because nothing would be measurable or even exist AT ALL without it! (no rotation = no matter).

          I'll look forward to your essay.

          Very best

          Peter

          Hi Peter...

          Just scored you a 10.

          Want to read and comment on as many essays as I have time.. will get back to this discussion after the poll closes.

          sl

          Hi Sue, Thanks. I'll get to yours soon. I see it's also bee trolled!

          P

          Dear Peter. Thanks for your comment on my comment on your essay. It made me think a lot and change my response "style". Before I was just offering my work as something people should look at to see if it could help them in their work. Now my approach it is to go into their work more deeply and see how I can help them in their work. Thanks! In my essay I say "The SSC model can be useful to scientists in their work". So I reread your essay in more detail to see where I might be able to help. In your essay you question the "fundamentals of logic that is the fundamentals of math". - As well as the fundamentals of physics and thought. My "revised essay" on April 6th emphasizes a new fundamental C*s to SSCU transformation - discussed in the essay appendix -. The transformation converts chaos to order and that order scales up to become "all ordered existence". All ordered existence includes all intelligence - logic, reason, human thought, math, - all physicality, chemistry, etc.. So this one fundamental transformation (foundation) can be the solution to many of the foundational problems that the mathematicians, philosophers, physicists, theologians are having. One solution to many problems would be nice. I believe this transformation is the "hidden middle" that disputes the first law of logic in your essay. It is the cardinality between the integers in the mathematical self replicating/self organizing scale up that becomes the visible universe and its contents. It is the "grade of membership between 0 and 1 in your "space of objects". It also puts " substance" into all ordered existence -including intelligence and consciousness-. It agrees with your end note in your endnotes - "Yet we agree with Minowski; "everywhere there is substance". As you also mentioned a new model has to be "startling at first sight...a radical conceptual renewal...look wrong before becoming simpler... Those comments describe the SSC model. A lot of our two essays are in agreement if one can translate what the other is saying into our different " languages". I will discuss what I see as the major agreements, differences and conceivable resolutions in the next posting on this thread. Talk to you soon thanks again John

            Peter,

            Thank you for your kind comments. Yes, duality and its cyclic nature is a fundamental property聽which I feel yields a much simpler, more tangible and geometric picture of reality. Although I am not at all qualified to weigh in on the increasingly complex physics聽theories聽I see today, their very mathematical complexity seems to obscure what they are trying to describe. My perhaps idealized view is that Nature should be inherently simple and efficient in principle and in form.聽

            I did explore octonians聽but find that quaternions are sufficient to fully describe the double-helix dynamic as 3D rotations in 4D space. Again, less is more!

            I just read and rated your聽excellent article and found much to ponder. Your distinction between physics and metaphysics is a thought provoking one, particularly the idea that numbers and math fall under the latter category as abstractions which are only approximations for nature. My take is that the fundamental laws from which physical phenomena manifest can still serve as a valid and computable "ancient Greek" blueprint for the identical shared properties of all galaxies, suns or grains of sand, even though chaos/complexity/etc. effects distort the ideal and create uniqueness upon physical emergence.

            Your concept of a 180-degree physical analogue for entanglement I found consistent with my thinking too, only I represent it as a 180-degree rotation of the complex plane such that particle/anti-particle聽pairs occur at geometrically identical though polarized positions within the double-helix probability聽waveform. Other ideas we seem to share include electron spin and galactic discs as toroidal rotation, matter arising from motion relative to the Higgs ground state, and all contributing to cyclic spiral fractals of form.

            Thanks again and all the best!

            Michael聽

            Thanks Peter...

            In that my essay explicitly request my readers' assessment of my application of Absolute Intelligence, as modeled therein, as the only logic evaluation criteria for my essay, and your assessment of my essay as "lovely", "original", and topical, does not concisely infer your assessment of my logic evaluation criteria, I will interpret a 10 score as encouragement for my obsession to verify a connection with the Cosmic Consciousness Computer (CCC://)... i.e. I am notoriously incorrigible, and yes, a flip of a coin was utilized as the only logic evaluation criteria for the content herein.

            In that your essay establishes concepts that can alleviates constrained perception, may FQXi's next essay contest topic, facilitate opportunity for application of those concepts.

            sl

            Sue,

            Not a scoring criteria, but as nature is 3D not 2D I am concerned about Boolean coin flips as the most revealing model. viz; Lets say you take a 3D form instead; a spinning sphere to closely model nature. Now flip its axis randomly in ANY direction and record if you get the Clockwise (South/) or ANTI clockwise (North/-) facing you.

            The results should still be ~50:50. Yes?

            Except it's also No! Every so often you'll find the equator facing you! Not only does certainty reduce, but precisely at the equator the decision becomes impossible, so your answers may HAVE to be 50:50.However closely you zero in the 'change point' disappears to infinity!

            There's no agents stress involved as it's valid for all 'exchanges of momentum' in measurement interactions.

            I've shown it's actually the same result if you answer the questions, it the surface momentum 'Left or Right', or 'Up or Down' when it lands at one of the poles.

            I agree ALL nature has this uncertainty, so the coin toss can model it, but in a way that's been rather 'hiding' the solution to the measurement problem from us. It also means the assumptions used for quantum computing are flawed and may continue stopping them emerge, as I suggested in my "IQbit" 'It from Bit' essay a few years ago.

            So I agree but also disagree with your proposition! Does that make sense?

            Very best

            Peter

            Dear Peter. As I mentioned I am posting to discuss the similarities and differences in our essays. First the similarities: 1.Same goals (for this essay). 2. concurrence about the laws of thought 3. Both obey conservation law 4. Both eliminate singularities 5. Matter comes from motion 6. Both have dynamic motion, vortices, "condensate to condensed matter" 7. Both have action at a distance--8.circular gradients 9. Boundary transition zones 10. Constant c in transition zones ( with a twist) 11. "Everywhere is substance" 12. Need physical entities 12. Can physics be this easy? 13. A new theory needs to be: "... startling at first sight...first look wrong before turning out simpler...radical conceptual renewal... an imaginative leap that will astonish us". 14. Recommend a new field of study. Next posting on this thread will introduce the differences. John

            Hi John,

            Thanks. I've read yours now. Yes I see the fundamental commonalities, and also differences. I'll respond on yours.

            Best

            Peter

            Hello Peter. In our postings we agree our theories have commonalities and differences. I do not believe our differences on the science are necessarily opposing views. I think they are representing different aspects of the processing. In fact I believe the theories could work in tandem - both supporting the other to provide a complete(more complete) theory. The SSC theory provides an "overall framework" of the entire processing. It provides a specific beginning, ending and a mathematical description of the overall processing. The overall description consists of two sets of equivalent and opposite processes. One set is the self creating progression and it's equivalent and opposite self dissipating progression. The other set is two equivalent and opposite process transformations. These transformations are separate in space, synchronized in time and maintain the speed of SSC (equivalent to the speed of light). These transformations connect the beginnings and endings of the self creation- self dissipating processes. The result is a repeating, circulating self creating- self dissipating processing that circulates back through a repeating beginning. This is the process that overcomes entropy, survives and self replicates. The process contains two countercurrent sc/sd processes with TZs in every pulsing activity of its circulating journey. I believe your axial/helictity Quasar like TZ zones in combination with my central core pulsing (Pulsar like) TZ zones could be combined to show how the SSC system propagates through the counter current flows of the universe and creates H atoms, solar systems, galaxies and universes as it progresses. It is an idea that interests me. More work needs to be done but it could be an interesting study. What do you think? One more question before I go. How could I interest FQXi with its foundational basis to investigate a fundamental process that could be the solution to a variety of fundamental problems in different disciplines? Thanks again. John