On the Depth of Quantum Space by Daniele Oriti

Dear Basudeba,

I see you have understood the problem of self-referential statements and connected it to relativity ... Indeed, Einstein's theory does not offer a way out of that, but all I want to say is that your statements are not in conflict with Einstein's equivalence principle; they are just contradictory to GR.

Concerning your evaluation of the work at hand; it is indeed exemplary of the modern culture where vague statements are cultivated and interpreted as a sign of presumed intelligence. It goes even deeper than that, those people will defend themselves by saying they are politically correct, while the simple truth is of course that the emperor has no clothes. I, on the other hand, say that whatever space-time picture you want, it has to be constructed from whatever representation of a totally ordered number system containing the reals. Of course, people then might still want to defend the discrete attitude by saying you can construct the reals from the naturals, but of course this is not a finite construction. Point is that nature cannot be locally finite a priori without any reference to the continuum or infinity.

Now, you may ask, do I have a strict mathematical proof of this? Well then, let me ask you for a mathematical proof that planets are not kept in their orbital motion by means of little angels. Physics does not operate in this way, alas very few are willing to accept that and reading books of Feyerabend is not going to help anybody in this matter.

Best,

Johan

Dear Sir,

You must be congratulated for maintaining your stand.

In the essay, you admitted that "I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms." You are showing the same ignorance and unease in replying to the points raised by us - both on your essay and on the comments of Mr. Jackson.

In stead of long political dialogues, kindly give specific and scientific replies raised by us or express your inability to address the points. There is no need to advertise your ignorance and unease in discussing scientific topics.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Daniele,

The question about who contributes is always a historical one and the choice which sauce accompanies the chicken the best is only agreed upon once sufficient people know its virtues. However, matters of style and tone have never been imperative to scientific progress although they seem to be terribly important for your personal well being. I always find this kind of limitations more annoying than the scientific ones.

Kind regards,

Johan

Caro Daniele

Your essay concentrates on quantized space - but should not the building blocks of space be the also the same as those making up matter?

In a recent post above you said "As a general remark, I do of course agree that a theory that explains gravity at a more fundamental level, which is what models of quantum space or related quantum gravity models try to do, and that in addition explains electromagnetism (electrostatics is not enough) and possibly other interactions (i.e. nuclear ones) would be better than one that only explains gravity. Unfortunately, I do not know any such complete theory yet."

I have presented just such a theory but it is incomplete say the least. Moreover for my model to function some basic notions of present-day physics (specifically GR, the notion of flexible space-time, the point photon, and of quantum probability) have to be reconstructed or reverse-engineered to a common and simpler theory - In my 2005 Beautiful Universe theory on which my present fqxi paper is based, a universal lattice of dielectric building blocks store angular momentum in units of h and transmit it to neighboring nodes. Gravitational potential (density) is caused by the rate of rotation of the nodes, and the pattern of twisting of the axes of rotation in the lattice. I would highly appreciate it if you can look at my ideas. They would only work if professionals like you pick them up and work out the details!

With best wishes for your success, Vladimir

Hi dear Daniele,

I had not read your essay, now yes, It's full of interesting things. Congratulations,and good luck for the final.

Steve

Hello Daniele,

I have another bugging question for you. I'm 100% convinced that this proposed 'inclination hypothesis' will be 100x more enlightening than the Archimedes screw model for the graviton/anti-graviton. It's a real eye-opener this one.

The precession of Mercury can be explained in the same way that the 100,000 year glacial cycle can be explained by the inclination hypothesis that has reduced tide raising forces with increased inclination. The reduced tides lowers the distribution of warm equatorial waters to the poles, which induces glaciation in the high latitudes. The combination of these two papers Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity and The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change can be used to reconcile the 1,800 year cycle to the 1,470 year cycle seen in physical data Timing of Abrupt Climate Change: A Precise Clock.

I've scanned a quick doodle from last night which shows how the planet Mercury, due to it's high eccentricity, has very different distances above and below the orbital plane when nearing the planet and when furthest away. This means that the tide raising forces will be very different from one half of it's inclination orbit compared to the other half, despite it only having an inclination angle of around 6 degrees. This difference in gravitational forces from the calculated Newtonian forces is the reason for the discrepancy of it's orbital precession. I need to do the calcs, I know.

This proposed increase in gravitational attraction on the rotational plane of a celestial body has a surprising number of possible examples. This article on the Pan and Atlas moons of Saturn mentions the problem of their formation from ring debris alone, it simply wouldn't happen under the gravity laws. They say that a gravitational 'seed' would be needed which is exactly the same conclusion that the Harvard professors came to when analysing their 360 mile wide innermost core of the Earth Earth's New Center May Be The Seed Of Our Planet's Formation.

Kind regards,

AlanAttachment #1: 1_Doodle.jpg

Ciao Daniele,

You are welcome,sincerely.

All the best.

Steve

Gentlemens

I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

Yuri Danoyan

I've taken the liberty of scanning Professor Taylor's new book where he talks about the current concensus opinion on the cause of the 100,000 year ice age cycle. It's a brillint summary of the situation as it stands. See attached and also attached to the next post.

AlanAttachment #1: 1_Dance_Of_Air__Sea1.jpgAttachment #2: 1_Dance_Of_Air__Sea2.jpg

Here's the next two pages..Attachment #1: 1_Dance_Of_Air__Sea3.jpgAttachment #2: 1_Dance_Of_Air__Sea.jpg

Dear Daniele

What is your prognoses about Fermilab experiment?

http://holometer.fnal.gov/

http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/program_planning/Nov2009PACPublic/holometer-proposal-2009.pdf

All the best

Yuri

The question, Is Reality Digital or Analog? is misleading like chicken and egg. All closed answer question carry risks of incorrect direction.

Reality is both digital and analog.