Dear Alan ,

I thought I would take a look at your essay. There literally is a screw loose in this competition because it keeps on popping up on the various threads all over the place. I notice some people have given you positive feedback on their threads which must be encouraging for you.I find it a little frustrating that you want people to discuss your ideas but do not seem prepared to look at and consider theirs.

This is obviously something that you have a burning desire to share and have considered by other people. Apparent lack of interest is something that I have become accustomed to as a regular contributor on the FQXi blog threads.I would not be too concerned about it. Everyone has their own pet ideas and concerns. I have however been delighted to have found people that I have never spoken to before who have regularly read what I have written and have only now introduced themselves and been most complimentary in their remarks. There are perhaps more people who have read your ideas than have wished to leave a comment.

Your essay is short, which was a surprise to me. I anticipated something longer and was actually quite relieved that I did not have to read something extremely difficult,long and complex. One of the shortest I would say having read quite a number of other essays now. It does not strike me as particularly foundational or an answer to the competition question either.If you think that is an unjustified observation perhaps you could explain. I am quite tired at the moment because I have been working through a lot of the essays much later into the night than I should.If I have time I will return to your thread before community evaluation closes and see if I can say something more constructive, positive and helpful.

Kind regards, Georgina.

    There's another angle w.r.t Newton's assumption that the whole planet is composed of the same material that is found on the external crust. It has implications for the Cavendish experiment, which is technically invalid imo due to this assumption. A non-standard core of the planets and sun can explain the ice age cycle via introducing the concept of inclination earth-tides, which would increase the strength of the ocean currents, a crucial factor in dtermining the onset of glaciation. The up and down movement of the Earth, it's inclination cycle, is a much better fit than Milankovitch cycles of eccentricity. See here Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity.

    "Thanks Hector! You're the third person to appreciate the connection. If Newton had hit on this idea we would never have had Einstein's spacetime continuum imo. It leads on to the idea explaining the 100,000 year ice age problems which are encountered with Milankovitch cycles. Nevermind.."

      Note to self:

      Anyone who uses the term "mass" is unwittingly subscribing to a spacetime continuum worldview imo.

      Thanks Georgina, your comments are most appreciated. I've taken what you've said onboard.

      Alan

      4 days later

      Here's another important point worth highlighting:

      "Hi Solomon, I liked the basic message which you convey in your essay. I have a suggestion of how to visualise the 'ultimate' reality of nature, an Archimdes screw models the GRAVITON perfectly if you think about it enough. If this helical screw graviton then travelled around a wraparound universe it would emerge on the otherside as an ANTI-GRAVITON or in other words, DARK ENERGY. It's too good to be ignored for any longer imo. Kind regards,

      Alan"

      Hi:

      I glossed over your essay necessariy as you commented on my entry as the first person. It really is short, sir. it seems very promising and a good read, but after every paragraph i wanted more. anyway doesn't seem fair to the rest of us shlubs (lol) who at least doubled the amount of essay content.

      Now let my be like the newer coinage of the Name of Hipocrates, and say we are all doomed anyway. Julian Barbour has entered also. Remeber he won the first contest hand down. I loved that essay and still have it in my car. He is a world-Famous Philosopher also and I can't wait to read his entry. And absolutely hate loving it a priori now.

      But, sir, we get to conversate here with Julian Barbour--squeal!--who cares? That alone is worth 5 pages of anything worthy to compete in this arena of an emergent property.

      I'll bet you your community rating that His essay is 5 pages of mostly essential content.

      thanx again...

        I prefer to call my essay succinct and to the point. The rules and outlines clearly express an overall desire for new concepts in foundational physics. I done just that and given at least two BIG new ideas. I know I rushed the actual presentation and the writing is of a minimal length to say just what I wanted to say. I'm going for the additional prize for enterprising new ideas rather than one of the big ones.

        Thanks for the info on Julian Barbour, I'll take a look and see if he has anthing new to offer. Best of luck Tommy. Alan

        Alan,

        Interesting read. Did you get any material ideas from Jean-Pierre Luminet, The Wraparound Universe?

        Jim Hoover

          I recommend Luminet's book, although I only really enjoyed the first few chapters or so. He continues with his own take on reality which wasn't something that took my interest unfortunately. The basic principle of a wraparound universe and having a mental image of how it can simplify the 'infinity paradox' is of paramount importance imo. I'd just like to re-iterate my point about a spinning helix which travels around a hypersphere being analogous to an electric circuit. Imagine you are on the inside of a battery which is connected to a simple loop of wire which makes an electric circuit. Imagine a handle rotates clockwise from the positive terminal as seen from your internal perspective. Now trace this turning handle as it travels along the wire and arrives at the negative terminal of the battery. Which way is the handle now turning from the viewpoint of the battery's interior? Is it clockwise or is it anti-clockwise?

          • [deleted]

          • Post #13

          Alan,

          Congratulations! Less is more managable, particularly when it comes to complexity and its bearing upon relative uncertainty. I tender a small offering in response to your resignation that "there are only three axes, so presumably there can't be an even number of right-handed and left-handed structures". Assuming that you are alluding to Euclidean axes, the contrary view, i.e. that there can only be an even number of such structures, would be valid if we were to acknowledge that each axis has every appearance of being two when we view each axis from each end. Such is the structure of any relationship, even though we tend to think of relationships as being singular. A relationship is not merely singular in location and time by straight alignment between two points, it is partitioned as between the interests of the parties. His interests in her cannot be interpreted to be identical to her interests in him, which makes of what we call a single relationship, two! Whether any one axis is analogous to a two-lane highway or to a double helix, one equals two. Ask any moon!

            Thanks for the kind words Gary. Yes, I am assuming Euclidean axes and appreciate your comment about an alternative view. I like the idea of challenging my basic understanding by considering that "each axis has every appearance of being two when we view each axis from each end". This insight is the same as a change of chirality when a helix travels around a loop or circuit. I'm assuming an observer from the point of creation of the 'spinning threads of spinning threads'. I still don't think that "the contrary view, i.e. that there can only be an even number of such structures" is valid though, even when taking into account of your relationship/relativity comment. You also still didn't answer my thought experiment of an observer on the inside of a battery in a circuit. Has it changed chirality or not??

            Kind regards, Alan

            Alfonso has kindly given me some encouragement with my new insight which I believe has been omitted from general relativity:

            Hi Alfonso, thanks for thinking about the thought experiment. It -is- the same whether going backwards or forwards. It doesn't matter which direction or which terminal you start from either of course. Thank you for this clarification and the following statement: "What would be interesting is to put your mental experimental going backwards. If there's no distintion between forwards and backwards, then you'd have found a symmetry. Although this is only a thought experiment and there's no math involved, which I deem relevant to be able to ennunciate a good hypothesis, finding a symmetry could imply the existence of anti-gravity, something that yet has to be accounted by general relativity."

            I have therefore found a symmetry and have a hypothesis for anti-gravity i.e. dark energy. Do you see the connection with a graviton which is an attractive force when radiated away from an object to the right in one instance, but if it manages to travel around the hypersphere without interacting with another structure, then emerges on the opposite side, i.e. approaching from the left, it is now a force of repulsion, relative to the initial object?

            My latest thoughts:

            Fundamental is the wrong word when considering particles in QM. Longevity is the definition of a particle, whereby it's rate of radiation is closer to it's rate of absorption than most. The dynamics of interlinked chiral structures means that the output of one is immediately absorbed by the intake of another. It's this characteristic which means larger structures can be more significant than smaller ones, despite the latter being more fundamental.

            Dear Alan,

            Yes, you have marvelously dropped a loose screw into the contest with your essay. It gives me a chuckle, but it also really makes me think about the logic of a smallest mechanical device. As you mentioned in a post on my essay (which I really appreciate) some of the same issues of a smallest device apply to strings, etc. While the substance of smallest devices may be undefined, I am interested in more definition of what makes them move.

            While you have put a burr under our seat that I can't quite figure out, I get the sense you are driving at something important. In a post above you say, "Note to self: Anyone who uses the term "mass" is unwittingly subscribing to a spacetime continuum worldview imo." This really interested me because my essay tries to break out of the spacetime mold, but still uses mass. I realize that taking mass out of my equations leaves a system of accelerations and velocities that appear to work all the way through. You may be right. It doesn't completely answer the questions I have but may be a step in the right direction.

            I thank you for dropping that screw for whatever reason even if you just like to hear things rattle.

            Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

              Dear Russell,

              Thank you very much for your latest post, it's exactly the kind of thing I was expecting and wanting to hear. I like the phrase "smallest mechanical device" which gives the idea some rigitity. It does have a comical aspect to it, especially since it's so easy to understand to the layman, and would perhaps put a bit of 'egg on the face' of the professional mainstream scientific community. It's certainly been overlooked imo.

              As to the definition of what makes them move I put down to the force of creation. I have a mental image of a hypersphere which has a lot of 'thriving energy' on the outside but a complete void or bubble of nothingness on the inside. One can imagine that this hypersphere or bubble spontaneously appeared and grew due to the non-perfect dynamics of the outer thriving energy. Energy from the ouside then penetrated the inside in a fountain of spin. This spurting spin energy then appears to 'us' as having structure, but perhaps is an illusion simply due it's spin energy, or it's spin momentum. The 'it' may not be anything that we understand as a substance, but may just evaporate or vanish with radiation for example. Once it's spin energy has dwindled via radiation, then perhaps the phenomenon simply ceases to exist and a void is left in it's place?

              You're almost there in understanding the complete meaning of the phrase "Anyone who uses the term "mass" is unwittingly subscribing to a spacetime continuum worldview imo". It's a very important point I'm making, yes. It's to do with the philosophy of worshipping a mathematical formula as sacrosanct. In Star Trek we are constantly reminded that "You cannot change the laws of physics", but this is a misconception from the 1900's. Newton's lack of a mechanism to explain the force of gravity left his equation as an approximation of reality. The equation itself denotes that all substances attract one another equally in all directions. This has just been assumed though, and appears to work well on the scale of planets but doesn't work well at the scale of particle physics. Think about it a bit more. A helical particle has orientation. This defies his equation. I have to go quickly, cheers for now. Alan

              • [deleted]

              • Post #19

              Rather surprisingly, this new hypothesis of our climate would even allow for the sun to be hotter during an ice age! It would account for the megafauna which is evidenced by their numerous fossils which would be due to an abundance of megaflora, w.r.t more sunlight. There's even evidence that tropical monkeys were also of mega proportions when compared with their modern counterparts:

              There's a cave in Brazil where remains of a much larger than normal species of monkey were found. How did they grow so big? Were the trees twice as big, with twice size fruit? That's the only possible scenario isn't it?? Webpage title: Discoveries Under Brazil.

              "The skull of Caipora bambuiorum, one of the two complete primate skeletons recovered from Toca da Boa Vista. It closely resembles the living spider monkey, but is more than twice the size, suggesting that South American monkeys participated fully in the mega-faunal phenomenon of the last Ice Age.

              Frontal view of the crania of Protopithecus (left) and Caipora (right), both from Toca da Boa Vista. They resemble living South American monkeys that inhabit the top levels of the tropical forest canopy, but they were significantly larger than any living species. Further exploration of Toca da Boa Vista hopefully will yield more primate species that also were quite large compared to modern monkeys."

              Dear Alan,

              Interesting! Now that you have asked us to look at your essay and re-introduced concept as a commentary and a possible reality, it seems like it would be up to you to show how it translates to equations with units that ultimately describe things measured in physics. It seems like a great way to get people to think and we want that specific logical detail to back it up.

              Your screw and mass comment have helped me to look at my own ideas so I am happy you gave me a poke!

              Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

              Dear Russell,

              I'm glad you have gained something from my ideas. They are perhaps more than you yet appreciate w.r.t finding a mishap in the evolution of manistream scientific dogma.

              I have studied simulation modelling at masters degree level and now have a mentality which reflects the expetise of my Brunel Unversity professor. I don't feel the need to translate my pictorial dynamics into equations with SI units at all. What I want to do is find someone good enough to express the ideas from the very start of creation. A simulation model of reality from start to finish is my ultimate goal. The details come later imo.

              Best wishes, Alan

                Dear Alan,

                I'll keep pondering your comments and I look forward to hearing about your developments.

                How would you classify your thoughts in the spectrum between philosophy and physics? I understand pure physics as something that can be tested and measured, but it does seem physics could be appropriately influenced by philosophy. History shows plenty of inappropriate influence and maybe that is why physics resists external philosophy. Some people (I can't remember the reference) think this puts a straight-jacket on physics. I see you trying to break out of that straight-jacket. So I'm curious how you attempt to resolve a philosophically leaning idea to translate it to predictable tests in physics. Perhaps that is not the goal. Or does one have to say at some point that no testing can be done beyond here?

                By the way, thanks for commenting again on my essay with a link to the LHC observations.

                Kind Regards, Russell