Dear Steve,

You once said that you had read my articles, presumably at my website. In those articles I try to raise what I think are very important issues that should be addressed by theoretical physicists. I reveal my own answers in my theoretical work which you would have also seen a link to at my website. My work is revolutionary in the sense that almost all definitions change. Therefore, I cannot be right unless theoretical physics is wrong about almost all definitions. So, I continue on alone pleasing myself with my results.

This is the point that I wish to make about Dr. Klingman to you and all other visitors: Dr. Klingman embraces theoretical physics while also accounting for consciousness. I think this is extremely important. For me, it is less important that others recognize my work, then it is for them to recognize that Dr. Klingman has addressed the problem of intelligence. The point is that it can be addressed by physcists. It has been addressed by some physicists right here in this essay contest. They have the necessary credentials to deserve the respect of reading and listening to what they have to say.

I like my essay. I like the reasoning that I use. I think it is correct. However, I also think that it is far more important that work done by physicists such as Dr. Klingman be understood and brought into mainstream theoretical physics. I like the solutions to practical mechanical type problems. I certainly can appreciate inventions. I have no doubt that these wonderful inventions will continue to appear. Theoretical physics does not reject mechanical innovation. However, so long as it limits itself to mechanical thinking, it will not reveal for us the true nature of this universe that gave birth to intellligent human beings.

Someone like Dr. Klingman is more likely than am I to break the logjam that currently keeps theoretical physics separated from life sciences. Life sciences are studying the most important property in the universe. That property must find its beginning in theoretical physics or theoretical physics is irrelevant for the most important property in the universe.

Dr. Klingman's essay is at: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #42

Dear James,

As one person who recognizes the the shortcomings of modern theoretical physics to another, do you have to overthrow all of Physics in one giant sweep? It is difficult enough to get enough support to change one little aspect. You will encounter much resistance if you try to overthrow everything.

I know you think that we are opposites. In my conclusion, I said "One version of Occam's razor says "Plurality ought never be posited without necessity."... Are Beauty and Symmetry necessary reasons to trump Simplicity? If Simplicity always trumps Necessity, then we should be satisfied with the "ugly but practical" Standard Model and a separate General Theory of Relativity, and we need to stop talking about such "foolishness" as Theories of Everything or Not Everything."

I know that my ideas look complicated, but I think it is analogous to finding the least common denominator (LCD) so that we can add fractions. If you wanted to add 1/2 plus 1/3 plus 1/6, you would find the LCD = 6, so that 3/6 plus 2/6 plus 1/6 = 6/6 = 1, and the apparently complicated is simplified. Likewise, if we want to unify the four known forces properly into one algebra, then that one algebra must be at least as large as the sum of its individual components. It looks more complicated because it is bigger and predicts new stuff, but the overall picture is simplified - the fundamental forces are placed on a compatible foundation.

You don't have to work alone in a vacuum. There are other mavericks on this blog site.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Dear Ray,

"I know that my ideas look complicated, but I think it is analogous to finding the least common denominator (LCD) so that we can add fractions. ..."

It did strike me that way and I wish I had thought to express myself in the manner you have. I said something about data compression and filing things in folders. I think of unity in a different way. However, I do see how you are connecting things together. Those connections sometimes fit with existing particles and sometimes require new ones. So, you have been innovative and have predictions that may validate your work. Does this seem fair to say?

"As one person who recognizes the the shortcomings of modern theoretical physics to another, ..."

I did have a different understanding which shows that I did not understand. I thought you accepted theoretical physics as it has developed and were stretching out and adding onto it. I do think you are doing the stretching as in being innovative. Some of your conversations about hyperdrives and hyperspace made me feel that you were not a maverick. Or, are those subjects what make you a maverick?

"...do you have to overthrow all of Physics in one giant sweep? It is difficult enough to get enough support to change one little aspect. You will encounter much resistance if you try to overthrow everything."

I definitely meet stiff resistance. I encounter hostile reactions from moderators of science forums. I encounter low ratings in the essay contests. However, it does not matter. What matters is we can say something new here. Now, with respect to changing one little aspect and working with it instead of blatantly overthrowing all of physics, I tried it the other way. Here is what happened:

I made one change that I thought would work better. It had to do with time. I soon found that I could not touch the theoretical treatment or inclusion of time in equations without changing other parts. Good theory is interconnected in major ways. I changed my approach. I decided to seriously consider that fundamental unity does exist and thought about how to discover it if it really is there. My essay indicates, but does not demonstrate, the path I followed.

Here are a few points that became essential. One is that mass must be defined at the beginning and not left till last. The reason is that if mass is incorrectly interpreted, it affects almost everything that follows theoretically. I did not see how such theory could later reveal the true nature of mass. The second point is that all empirical data consists of units of distance and time. Or, perhaps I should stick, for now, with just pointing out that f=ma was formed to model data that consists only of units of distance and time. For me, this meant that whatever identity I gave to either mass or force must be reducible to units consisting only of distance and time. I can use units of kilograms or newtons for convenience, but their derivations must rely upon the data the revealed them to us. The equation depends fully upon that data. Therefore, force and mass must, in their most fundamental expressions, be expressible solely in units of distance and time. Ultimately, this means that every proposed property must be reducible to units of distance and time. Any units that are fabricated without first finding their roots in distance time are not only artificial, but are impediments when included in our equations. I will leave it there for now. This message will probably cause my rating average to go down some more; however, all that matters is that we get to say our piece in our own way without obstruction. Thank you for your message. Let me know what you think whether positive or negative it is welcome.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #44

Dear James,

I understand. Perhaps I am only stretching the existing framework further, or perhaps it will lead to something radically new. I think Lawrence's next paper could lead to something radically new. I am stumped by the hyperdrive problem, but Jason is a bright young fellow - perhaps he can figure it out. Perhaps time, space and mass are all flawed and you do need to overthrow everything.

I would hope we can say what we really think about certain areas of physics and not watch our scores suffer for it. I was an Assistant Professor of Physics up until 1999. I taught Astronomy part-time up until 2003. I gave up being a professional physicist so that I could lead my family's business. This blog site is my contact with the physics community. I respect it, and have spoken with most of the people on this site respectfully. Frank bugs me, but I regret that I was rude towards him. Everyone deserves to speak their piece.

Good Luck!

Ray Munroe

  • [deleted]

  • Post #45

Dear James ,,

I like your vision of things .

You know ,to put into practice several models,politic ,economic ,juridic ,ecologic ,energetic ,education ,health ,agriculture ,water ....it's essential to unite skills and to have a real base ,physically speajking and that to produce some adaptes solutions in local places .It's essential to pass above our individualism .Work alone isn't a solution ,because alone we are nothing .

Anybody has the solution but we have the solution ,all is there .

You know personally I know the revolutionary concept of my theory ,but Am I better ,no ,Have I the solution ,no ,all fundamental models complete themselves ,they are in pure physical correlations .

If you want put into practice your model ,thus let's unite and let's act pragamtically .It's only simple like that .They wait our fellow men .Many people have these skills and universalities thus let's unite and let's act ...

Thanks to be like you are , a real universalist thus take care dear James

Hello Ray ,take care too

Best Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #46

Dear Ray ,

Your ideas like Lawrence ,Lisi ,Emile ,Florin and some others aren't complicated but only mathematical in the imaginaries with a Lie algebras which aren't fundamentals ,it lacks many things in these imaginaries complexs.

We can't change our laws dear Ray and the maths must be pragmatic with limits ,if not all is falses .They don't exist these higgs Ray ,but I respect your choice to think like that ,I just say my opinion ,these models lack physicality and reality .These extradimensions don't exist too ,the tachyons don't exist ,Ex Ey isn't right simply ,like strings too ,and now the M theory ...no no no all that is false ,like multiverses too ,and after the multispheres perhaps .

Let's be pragmatic please with sciences ,our dynamic is mechanicaly univresal ,complex but simple too .

I don't think you losse your time but I think what whe a superimposing is made ,the pragamatism and the rationality between math and physics must considered with the biggest reason .

3D and a constant of evolution ,the time ,this oscillation is specific and in a pure thermodynamic .The mass don't arrive of the exterior ,no the mass is a effect of a cause ,physical ,the rotations of bodies ,here the spheres ,quantics or cosmologics .

Best Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #47

Dear Steve,

Extra dimensions are how I try to make sense out of this confusion. But when everything is said and done, we must still explain why we observe 3 space plus 1 time dimensions. Our models are different, but could be complementary - the "particle/ wave duality" of a TOE.

I called my idea "A Geometrical Approach Towards A TOE". I only mean TOE in the sense that the 4 known forces, all known bosons, and all known fermions are unified under a compatible framework. We do not know all of the laws of physics yet. And there is more that we do not understand about the Universe.

Do you have plans to publish your ideas? I think you should publish an abreviated version in a Journal, and publish the entire version as a book.

Take Care, Steve!

Take Care, James!

Ray Munroe

  • [deleted]

  • Post #48

Hi Dear James ,dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,

Thanks ,I think the same indeed about the complemenatrity .You and Lawrence are really two mavericks in knowledges even if I don't agree about your imaginaries tools .Like I said before ,I learned a lot with both of you in math .Even I f I don't insert these complexs and imaginaries ,It's likeable to see these extrapolations and series .

About the publication ,I need help ,really Ray ,I speak a lot but I have a real problem with my adaptation to the system .I am lost in my isolation you know .If I speak like that about my works ,there is several reasons ,I must adapt me too because there at 34 years ,really I am too isolated and I am non utile ,it's frustrating .I don't know where I can publish ,how ,more how resume ,oh lalalal it's a catastrophe .I think that the best solution is to publish a good resume ,a kind of taxonomy with about 30 or 40 pages .After a book of vulgarisation and I continue my 420 pages with all these classments and links .I d like too put into practice my inventions too(you know the vegetal world has many properties ).

In all case thanks Ray it's nice .Viva el complemenatrity .

Best Regards

Steve

6 days later

Dear James A. Putnam,

I have responded on my page to a comment from Narendra Nath. It is an extended comment and one that you may find interesting. Thank you for your comments and exchanges in this forum. I have enjoyed all of them immensely.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dr. Klingman,

Yes I read it. I think your work is a definite improvement over the mechanical type theories of the past that failed to address consciousness. I wanted to help raise your ratings; however, I felt that I began to stumble and around that time your rating dropped. So, I decided to leave things alone until after voting closed. I found your books on the Internet. I do still have my own theory that forms a prism through which I tend to analyze the work of others. If gravity is mentioned I think about how my view of gravity would apply. In fact, I am anxious to apply my interpretation of gravity to your equations. It may be a reflection of my prejudice, but I still want to see what happens. You have done more sophisticated work than have I, and I do intend to learn what I can from it.

James

Dear James,

I admire your approach very much. It is your attitude that I believe, in the end, is productive of the most progress. Let's keep in touch.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Since it comes up now and then that the universe originated because 'nothing' is unstable, I will point out that I have not yet seen a theory that began with nothing as its premise. Null points in equations do not result from the activities of, or action carried out upon, 'nothing'. That is, unless 'nothing' is actually something. Where did the something, from which 'nothing' is made, come from? So we return to that same lack of knowledge with which we began.

James

This is a copy of a message I left in another essay forum. There has been no response. I stand behind what I said, so I repeat here:

Dear Dr. Vesselin Petkov,

I see you are busy with semester deadlines and with answering other messages that precede mine. However, should you find the time, I chose one item from your essay to pose a question. You said:

"Moreover, Einstein himself described the realization that a person falling from the roof of a house does not feel the force of gravity as the happiest though(t) in his life. ... A conceptual analysis of Newton's gravitational theory could and should have revealed, long before Einstein realized it, that a falling body offers no resistance to its acceleration. This means that the body is not subjected to any gravitational force, which would be necessary if the body resisted its fall. Therefore, the falling body moves non-resistantly, by inertia. But how could that be since it accelerates?"

Even during Newton's time, why would anyone expect that a person in free fall should feel the force of gravity? It appears to me that Newton's theory predicts that no falling object should experience any sensation of a force acting on it even while the force of gravity is acting on it. The force of gravity acts evenly on all parts of the object. If there is no compression or other type of physical distortion, then why would anyone feel an effect due to falling freely due to the force of gravity. Thank you.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #54

Dear Jimmy,

i was literally going to miss going through the beautiful essay you penned down from your head and heart. i enjoyed going through it as it talked about life, intelligence evolution, as compared to the mechanical evolution of the universe. Your logic is straight. yes, we all need to work harder, Klingman, Ray, Tejinder,Steve,.... you and me, if only we can. Why can't we work together, some say we live in different countries, others say we do not have common language and culture, yet some others may say we can not eat common food, and what not! What is the way out. The way out lies in loving the humanity universally and not in an isolated manner. We need to be like birds so that visas are not required, we need to be like a baby who views the world without any bias, we need to be free like air, water,fire,earth and consciousness! The latter can be considered as 'nothing/vacuum' physically speaking.

Narendra Nath

Dear Narendra and James,

It is a beautiful thing that the internet can help unite people of such diverse backgrounds. Steve Dufourny wants to build a Science Center in Belgium where all scientists would be welcome. He also wants to use this scientific potential to help feed and water Africa (of course, war, political systems and disease make this a difficult goal). It would be good if he can overcome his personal financial difficulties and establish such an organization.

What is Nothing? Was there always Something? Even if Spacetime didn't exist before Inflation, even if the Universe had not yet "created" energy via the Free Lunch scenario, "Something" probably existed. Was it the primordial String? Was it God? Can we ever truly fathom a full understanding of our mysterious Universe?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Dear Professor Narendra Nath,

Thank you for that very kind message. I read your essay some time ago and gave you a rating of 10. I am wondering if there is a way to bring the free spirits of physics together. I am in favor of people working together; however, I assume that each individual feels drawn to develop their own ideas. The most I would be looking to accomplish at this time is to bring those independent ideas together at one location on the Internet.

Jimmy

The question of natural versus unnatural often comes up. So, I will express my view that nothing is natural until it is proven to exist in the form defined by the person putting it forward for consideration. The 'natural causes' of theoretical physics are not proven in that manner. They are assumed to exist for the practical necessity of solving mechanical type properties. If they receive mechanical type definitions, that is adequate, but not proven, for the mechanical level of understanding. When we look to the universe for guidance, we find that all that is necessary to explain the operation of the universe as we understand it is information and intelligence. These are the natural properties of the universe. They do not have to be proven. However, they are the only things that do not have to be proven. All else is unnatural until proven. Theory is inadequate to distinguish the real from the unreal. It is the pretender to the throne. That is my opinion.

James

I greatly appreciated being able to particpate in this contest. The courtesy shown is up there with the quality of the essays. I thought there were several essays by phd's that should have received significantly higher ratings; however, that was the chosen system at work. It will be interesting to see how the judges affect the outcome.

Respectfully,

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #59

Dear Ray ,merci ,I am touched and not a little ,many thanks .

Friendly

Steve

Things have quieted down. I have to wait many months for the next contest. So, I will return to my theory. I was working on redefining the uncertainty principle. When I left off, the more precisely I defined it the more uncertain I became. When I lost momentum, I began to increase in size. When my energy decreased my clocks began agreeing with each other.

James