Georgina,
I never saw this site before today. I have never written an anonymous post on FQXi (in fact, I don't recall ever writing an anonymous post anywhere). If you think I directed you here, be assured that it was an imposter, not I.
But so far as Michael Jeub goes -- ROTFL!
Tom
Michael
Brilliant - ranks alongside Tommy Gilbertson as an enjoyable respite. But I particularly warmed to your;
"This led to the most complex notion of "length" as being quite useless unless it is first normalized, and then re-normalized."
I hope a mind like yours might like mine, where I've hidden a real toroid black hole, in plain view, with photographic evidence, and am now announcing a prize to the first who spots it and doesn't get sucked in.
I hope you can read it and comment. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803
Stay cool
Peter
Well I am sure they are all beautiful instruments. My piano restoration project is an ugly, thumping brute by comparison. I admire the function of its mechanism but also despise it, having spent so much time tending to and adjusting it. It would take quite some time for me to forget the tedium. I now better understand why old pianos are frequently discarded rather than restored. Perhaps I chose the wrong instrument. Though the naked hammer and damper mechanism did look pretty cool sitting on the table and is fun to play with. It reminds me a bit of a Theo jansen's walking machines.link:www.youtube.com/watch?v=b694exl_oZo]Walking sculpture.[/link]
Tom,
I apologise for jumping to the conclusion that you were Anonymous. On checking it was an Anonymous poster that referred me here, after your "signed" message to me, in the same conversation box. Such mistaken identity can occur when people choose to be Anonymous.
Anonymous did say that he/she was not Tom and I thanked Anonymous for letting you off the hook. So we all know Anonymous is not you. Though both he/she and you seem to find something hilarious. So you have something in common.
It is interesting to me that a number of contributors have chosen to be Anonymous on this particular thread.
Hi Armin,
I have found this work intriguing unlike many of the other highly complex papers that are just utterly incomprehensible and completely un-intriguing and frankly dull to a non specialist such as myself. This essay is very content rich but is I think not ultimately indecipherable or nonsensical.
It would have helped if the author had more clearly explained the raison d'etre of the essay in the abstract. Though that would also have removed some of the intrigue and interest for me. Guessing is not the best approach but making the effort to do serious research is time consuming, so having the author explain is a short cut.
Now that Michael Jeub has replied to some of the comments and elsewhere on the site, it is clear that he has a particular and unusual style of communicating that includes a lot of detail and skill in the use of language. It may be a reflection of his thinking style. That linguistic skill is demonstrated in the essay as well.It is not mere conglomerated content.
I see no reason why such an essay should not be included in the competition and readers and judges can make of it what they will.It did say in the details about the competition that the essay should be accessible to a well educated but non specialist audience and they suggested a new scientist article to be the cut off in difficulty. This essay would seem to fall outside of that suggested level but so do other essays in the competition, in my opinion.
Georgina
Here is that link written correctly Walking sculpture Brilliant things.
Without H the opinion is not so humble and merely stated as opinion rather than fact.
Glad to hear it is possible to resurface from drowning in those unfathomable depths. Yes, I certainly would like to see the cartoons. I do not know if they will communicate anything to me, until I see them, but I am curious to see them non the less. I also think that it is important that they are seen here, if they are a part of your competition entry.
Georgina,
Anonymous, in my reading, was only trying to get you to appreciate the entertainment, rather than be roped into being part of it.
I will say, Michael Jeub has quite effectively made his point.
Tom
Tom,
We can not know Anonymous's motives since he/she is completely unknown to us.
He/she is entitled to their own opinion.
I will indeed read your essay and comment. Thanks.
Michael
Thanks for your kind and perceptive comment in my string. I responded;
"Well worked out. But did you identify the lensed light betraying the Black Hole's outline?
We must define the meaning of 'pressure' in more detail to validify our generalisations. We have missed something VERY important in present science, as I mention above;
When a light signal in medium A enters a new medium B, moving at v, we observe (from A) a different wavelength.
The light speed also changes (c/n), but, before we start thinking about the LT to stop it exceeding 'c' when we add v (medium) consider; An observer in medium B will also see a FREQUENCY change! This validates the SR postulates and Law of Conservation of energy (both c and E = f*lambda.)
This is NOT TRUE from the viewpoint of observer A, as that is now not a valid observer frame from which to measure the phenomena within medium B.
The reasons for introducing the LT are REMOVED. Light scattered from B to A does max. 'c' anyway. The SR postulates can now be met without paradox or the many anomalies that are thrown up.
Are the powers of logic or visualisation of the majority of humankind really not yet adequate to comprehend this?"
I think it's been rather missed that this is precisely the paradigm shift we've been searching for to remove the rift between QM and SR, and all the anomalies. I am a little nonplussed. Hmm, but, as an example; should I not be less unsurprised ? ..as this is simply one step beyond our brains natural capability!
Peter
It's hard to think about theories with two times if that is what is meant by "t eff." Theories of everything encompass everything, and I do think my first essay attempt amusing as well. I do not take myself seriously, as most physicists don't either. The namespace for all this kind of theory that I am really deeply interested in is not standard, and I have inherited libraries from here and there and everywhere. My essay may sound like some class instance like that, but I will assure you that I am only trying to absorb into my brain the distributed architecture of reality, and for me it's at the trunk of the tree of that namespace. I am almost afraid to re-read my essay because I might think I've become a machine of AI, incapable of RI!
Cheers, best, and all that jazz!
I have not forgotten about the cartoons or sketches. In the olden days there used to be this thing called "the artist's sketchbook." It was encouraging to see someone doing a sketch today. My sketches were a way for me to keep my sanity while pursuing natural philosophy and reminding myself of these mysteries. I will attach them soon. They are rubbish as art, but there's no accounting for taste, as a critic would say!
Thanks for staying posted,
Michael
I might add, that the abstract I wrote for the website is not the one I intended. As a novice I just let this go. Most people who are wirters have had years of practice and were good writers when they went to school. I did not start writing until I wanted to understand math and science better, which was 2007. Textbooks need to be written with primal and fundamental flavors, not just the basic stuff either. For example a small child needs to know that sqrt(x)=
[math]$sqrt x$
[/math]
Well in the literature, the young poor person will need to attempt to translate the mangled awful language of science and computer science into terms that ring true with understanding. Is reluctance, for example, resistance, capacitance and induction all wrapped up into something only the componentizers should know, or should it be explained? I say to the scientists and engineers of the world, don't be reluctant, it impedes progress.
I have attached the sketches I did during the period I was writing the essay. The one titles "progression" could depict say, a one-form, a vector, and a vector field. The one entitled " a ferris encounter represents a dream I had about chance and fortune and alternating paths. The last one was actually taken from a chart in a paper I cited, but I made some changes to it to make it into an artistic expression without losing the synergy form I saw in the original chart.
I am attempting to upload the sketches I made while writing the essay.
The other part of my essay, the abstraction layer, the sketches hopefully attached.
IT is one MB (1097639) bytes but won't upload, perhaps it is too large....
attachments