Thank you so much, basudeba

Your detailed comments deserve some thought, so I will reflect on them. The thoughtful and enlightened commentary of a fellow truth seeker is always appreciated.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I wish to thank all of my readers, and especially those who responded thoughtfully to my paper, and have thus placed me in the finals. You have been gracious to me, and I hope I have likewise helped some deserving souls to move up in the standings, as well.

There were so many fine papers in the contest this year. And many deserved great respect. I am glad you all thought so highly of mine.

I wish you all good will.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

Thanks also to Steve Dufourny - whose post I missed earlier.

May you have spheres within spheres, and may our spheres intersect somewhere down the road.

Regards, JJD

For what it is worth,

I shall be checking in on this page from time to time, to read and address any comments I find. I do invite continued interaction from the other contest authors and the public, regarding the topics discussed in my essay.

I wish all of the other finalists the best of luck, and I thank FQXi, Scientific American and the Gruber foundation for making the contest possible.

Regards,

Jonathan J. Dickau

Dear Jonathan,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes and I hope you win something,

Alan

Yes Alan,

A simple shape, a geometric analogy if you will, can help us to understand through symbological or metaphorical means what reductionist thought patterns could never reveal. But perhaps it is more about the essence of what makes an Archimedes screw work, rather than the simple shape itself.

Is gravitational reality inside-out from the sense of EM forces? Well maybe gravity is actually an expansive force, but the fabric of the universe is inside out. I think when Lawrence talks about a Kleinian duality, what he means is that the universe is Mobius shaped.

I like the idea of a spiral universe and graviton. But for the screw action to work, there has to be a down direction, an inside and an outside, and other things that are hard to imagine having an exact analogy for gravitons or the universe itself. But I don't mind turning my mind inside out trying.

All the best,

Jonathan

    • [deleted]

    • Post #59

    :) indeed but with a very very rational Occham Razor at my humble opinion :)

    All te best

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    • Post #60

    You are welcome,

    You know all roads go to the sphere....thus of course the synchro are relevant.

    All the best

    Steve

    Jonathan,

    I just realised that the orbit of Mercury quandry can also be explained by the 'inclination hypothesis'. No fabric of spacetime needed!

    Alan

    To the last comment; well, perhaps inclination of orbits can play a larger role in dynamics than we would expect, but if true this would imply some torsional element to gravity. I know this possibility is being explored, but I don't know how those theories stack up against other models.

    About the moons of Saturn; they are pretty cool but perhaps not entirely baffling. One could imagine that a rapidly rotating dense object plowing through the debris-rich rings would tend to accrete in somewhat of a disc shape, until the rotation is slowed by its own mass.

    I'm not saying that I know for sure there are no unidentified spacecraft orbiting Saturn. But it's far more likely the 'UFO moons' are balls of rock and dust, perhaps with just enough water to be like wet clay early on. Very cool photos though.

    All the best, JJD

    Hi Jonathan,

    The precession of Mercury can be explained via the 'inclination hypothesis' in the same way that the 100,000yr glacial cycle can be explained by the inclination hypothesis that has increased tide raising forces with increased inclination. 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. That's a task which will validate the claims of climate skeptics. I'd be delighted if you posted this in your Azimuth forum btw.

    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.

    Btw I don't understand what you mean by a 'torsional element to gravity'. Could you explain some more for me?

    The article on the 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: 4_Note1.jpg

    Typing error: in the attachment I should have written d1>>d2

    No time right now Alan.

    Please do a web search for 'torsion gravity' and see what comes up. You should get 4 or 5 good leads, although some of the references will be a bit technical.

    However; since you are the fellow who decided to talk about the Archimedes screw, maybe you should study up about torsion gravity. But I warn you. The Math for that subject is very heavy - and not for the weak at heart.

    But if someone finds decisive evidence that torsional gravity is a fact, perhaps your Archimedes screw model will be a popular visual model, just as the deformed rubber sheet is for the Einstein version. Who knows? Please look it up though.

    JJD

    Okay, I did just that and read this in the first few seconds from Wikipedia:

    A torsion field (also called axion field, spin field, spinor field, and microlepton field) is a pseudoscientific[1] theory of energy in which the quantum spin of particles can be used to cause emanations lacking mass and energy to carry information through a vacuum at one billion times the speed of light.

    I don't need Archimedes screw gravitons to travel any faster than light (at the moment), I don't see the need. Photons themselves are configurations of emitted gravitons/anti-gravitons in my current working model.

    Thanks for the info though, I'll look into it later if need be.

    Cheers,

    Alan

    Not so fast....

    Torsion gravity and torsion fields are not necessarily the same. Or rather, not all of what's being explored (relating to torsion gravity) is pseudo-science. There may be pseudo-scientists who have adopted this notion, but they do not appear to be talking about the same thing as the scientists, from where I sit. However; most of the best references for the real thing are very technical.

    I really don't know enough to tell you more, even as to whether the Wiki has guided you true, but I had heard the term and thought it might apply here or would be worth your checking into.

    All the Best, JJD

    Okay, thanks, I'll bear that in mind. I need to read-up on it all in more detail this time.

    Alan

    2 months later

    Thanks again to all.

    As the contest comes to a close, I am gratified to see my work featured on the FQXi Forum page, as one of the top essays this week. I also see my friends Lawrence Crowell - who is on the editorial board with me at Prespacetime - and Ray Munroe - with whom I am writing what is shaping up to be a most excellent paper on Octonions. I apologize for my absence from the Essay discussions, throughout so much of the process, but I have been rather busy - academically and otherwise.

    Of course; a subject like Octonions demands more than a little study for me, but our paper has made Ray do his homework too. I submitted three abstracts for FFP12 in Udine, this November; one on how we need whole-brain thinking to understand Quantum Mechanics, one asking if folks in Physics are responsible to help inform the public, and a third asking what the Mandelbrot Set can teach us about Cosmology. The first covers a lot of material from my FQXi essay, the second introduces people to the Azimuth project, and the third talks about a subject I've been exploring for quite a while.

    I got to serve as Administrator for viXra, during a recent period of Phil Gibbs' absence, and that was quite educational. For those who don't know; he and I were guest editors for what turned into a two issue special feature on Cosmology for Prespacetime, last year. But I have also been assisting Floyd Holt, who was once 'America's Teacher of the Year,' to prepare his presentation for Udine. Floyd is planning to build a Science and Technology Center nearby, and I want to introduce him to B.G. Sidharth, who is one of the Frontiers of Fundamental Physics conference organizers, and who also founded a Science Center.

    I wish the best of luck to all the finalists, and I thank all who visit this page for coming.

    My thanks also to FQXi, Scientific American, and the Gruber Foundation.

    Warm Regards,

    Jonathan

    Write a Reply...