reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Dear Frank,

This is a response to questions that you posted on my blog site. I removed any potentially objectionable material.

Thank you for your interest and questions.

1) Look at history. Theodor Kaluza unified gravity and electromagnetism in 5 dimensions, but did not include the nuclear forces. I did not invent the idea of unseen dimensions. Honestly, I didn't even...

view entire post

Dear Frank,

This is a response to questions that you posted on my blog site. I removed any potentially objectionable material.

Thank you for your interest and questions.

1) Look at history. Theodor Kaluza unified gravity and electromagnetism in 5 dimensions, but did not include the nuclear forces. I did not invent the idea of unseen dimensions. Honestly, I didn't even seriously consider these multi-dimensional ideas until recent years.

I equate rank with dimensionality. We see 4 dimensions, and the first four (ranked) charges are 1) color_g3, 2) color_g8, 3) hyperflavor and 4) weak isospin. The first four ranks (dimensions) do not include a graviton charge!That's OK if gravity is just a 4-D curvature effect without a graviton, but then a full unification of QED and quantum gravity is impossible.

I also equate dimensional collapse with broken symmetries. We MUST have at least one broken symmetry (I count 8 - perhaps from an 8-D octonion of hyperspace or N=8 Supersymmetry) or else we would be living in the TOE universe (and all coupling constants would be simple, predictable multiples of each other - they aren't). Therefore there must be at least 5 (I count 12) dimensions.

I also think that 8-D octonions are relevant to General Relativity because an octonion contains the 10 antisymmetric tensors of Einstein's Field Equations.

2) At the Big Bang, there may have been an Electro-Gravity union, but you won't hear me call it that because those are different branes and different spaces (regular spacetime vs. hyperspace). You will see me call the unions Electro-Color (3-D space) and Gravi-Hyperflavor-Weak (hyperspace plus time) for a complete Electro-Color-Gravi-Hyperflavor-Weak union. It is a little complicated, but you are welcome to read my essay.

Personally, I think we should agree to disagree. I still think you need more math and data in your presentations.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Hello dear Frank and dr cosmic Ray ,

Your essay is very good about the phylosophical point of vue .

That said ,I don't understand how you can say what the gravity is repulsive or attractive ,the grvity is always attractive dear Frank ,really .

If you said what the electromagnetism and the gravity interacts in an evolution point of vue ,it could be more pragmatic in my opinion...

view entire post

Hello dear Frank and dr cosmic Ray ,

Your essay is very good about the phylosophical point of vue .

That said ,I don't understand how you can say what the gravity is repulsive or attractive ,the grvity is always attractive dear Frank ,really .

If you said what the electromagnetism and the gravity interacts in an evolution point of vue ,it could be more pragmatic in my opinion if a balance is made between gravity and electromagnetism .

About the dream ,there too a balance is necessary ,it exists many kind of dreams ,....perhaps it could be better if you analyze and insert the memory ,universal and specifics .....perhaps some links with a pragmatic dream is possible .But a link too must be made with the creativity .

An other point if the relativity and the utilisation of fourth dimension ,there too a balance is needed because our local gravitational systems are in 3D more a constant ,the time which builds ,and the gravity there is attractive .

It could be well too if you insert the synchronization of polarisations with the brain and its proteinic systems ,too with the evolution point of vue and the very weak interactions .

There the rotations too are relevant about some synchronisations .The synapses and the two hemispheres ,where the imagination and the pragmatism are ,can be too correlated with rationality .

Regards

Steve

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Dear Frank I have some ideas for you .

It's the same with our Earth ,when we see the evolution and the begining 13.7 billions years to 15 ago .

The Earth is a spherical system with a center ,this center is very important ,we are the result of a specific polarisations in time ,the codes of informations are thus very important inside the main centers of particles .

Thus you can...

view entire post

Dear Frank I have some ideas for you .

It's the same with our Earth ,when we see the evolution and the begining 13.7 billions years to 15 ago .

The Earth is a spherical system with a center ,this center is very important ,we are the result of a specific polarisations in time ,the codes of informations are thus very important inside the main centers of particles .

Thus you can imagine a system between centers and electromagnetism .

Correlated with the center of our Earth ,the center of our sun ,the center of our galaxy and the center of our universe ,and the centers of our brais in the quantum achitecture .After you insert the geometry and class the polarities thus the senses too .

There you are going to have a system of polarisations with limits ,thus you can insert the polarisations of our perceptible system more the universal memory .

Don't forget too to make a balance with actual paremetrs ,psychologic ,economic,geographic,evolutif,....there the dreams nd creativities inside the brain system must be balanced like an algorythm of superimposings and sortings with fundamenatsl of physics .

Sincerely

Steve

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Hello Frank,

I have downloaded your essay, and will read and comment. At the point I have a settled opinion about it, I will make a rating. My first thought, looking at the abstract and opening comments, is that we'll likely have some things to agree on, and other areas where I will remain unconvinced. But I will suspend judgment until I've had a chance to digest your words a...

view entire post

Hello Frank,

I have downloaded your essay, and will read and comment. At the point I have a settled opinion about it, I will make a rating. My first thought, looking at the abstract and opening comments, is that we'll likely have some things to agree on, and other areas where I will remain unconvinced. But I will suspend judgment until I've had a chance to digest your words a bit.

I once wrote a more philosophical essay on reality and fantasy, which concluded that fantasy, dreams, and imagination were in some ways more real than material existence - as they have the power to shape what we do. Dreams contain our hopes and aspirations, our inspiration and motivation. Of course dreams are important, and perhaps essential to advances in Science, especially Physics - which pushes the envelope, and peels back the barriers of what can be known. This is especially true of Theoretical Physics.

So I will read your essay, and let the ideas sink in a while before I comment. Maybe I'll sleep on it, before saying anything. But then you may be confident that I will comment. I will separately post an answer to the several questions posed on my page (most likely sooner), in that forum.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Greetings Frank,

I wanted you to know that I finished reading your essay, and found it interesting. Some of the connections to Physics were tenuous, at best, but many of the ideas you suggest would be interesting to explore, or are helpful. And you make a good point that Science, in general, benefits from the perspective offered by dreams.

I liked the idea of talking about the...

view entire post

Greetings Frank,

I wanted you to know that I finished reading your essay, and found it interesting. Some of the connections to Physics were tenuous, at best, but many of the ideas you suggest would be interesting to explore, or are helpful. And you make a good point that Science, in general, benefits from the perspective offered by dreams.

I liked the idea of talking about the narrowing of the view provided by the telescope, and the analogy with the narrowing of focus in dreams - that was splendid. But there is a difference - if you move the telescope a certain angle away and then the reverse angle back, you will end up back on the original target (assuming you don't wait long, or compensate for movement of the stars over time). However, with dreams you have a non-commutative geometry - where going back a similar distance in the opposite direction will not bring you back to the same place.

On (non-commutative geometer) Alain Connes' web-site, he devotes a page to advice for young Mathematicians, and one suggestion is not to underestimate the importance of the 'hard work' done while lying flat on the back or daydreaming during a walk in the woods.

There were some inconsistencies with my experience in your essay, for example in the area of fatigue which is present in some of my dreams and absent in others. I will actually sleep on it, before I say more, but I'll certainly have a few more comments to offer.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Hello again Frank,

I will have some more comments, after a brief review. I'll have to get to that in a bit. But I was wondering if you had noticed the essay of Daegene Song, which claims to show through Quantum Mechanics that only the subjective experience of the universe exists.

And it looks from a quick glance like it touches on some of the same things you do. I'd have to...

view entire post

Hello again Frank,

I will have some more comments, after a brief review. I'll have to get to that in a bit. But I was wondering if you had noticed the essay of Daegene Song, which claims to show through Quantum Mechanics that only the subjective experience of the universe exists.

And it looks from a quick glance like it touches on some of the same things you do. I'd have to actually read it to know for sure. But that won't happen right away. I'll be back here later, though.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan.

In reply to my prior posts at your essay page, you have now said:

"I just re-read your second post above and it made a bit more sense of something you were saying in the earlier post. Your statement at the end "How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea." is right on. Perhaps the key, as you say, is to...

view entire post

Hi Jonathan.

In reply to my prior posts at your essay page, you have now said:

"I just re-read your second post above and it made a bit more sense of something you were saying in the earlier post. Your statement at the end "How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea." is right on. Perhaps the key, as you say, is to recognize that there is both an attractive and repulsive component at work - which changes the effective action at different levels of scale. This makes unification simpler."

"We end up 1) Balancing/unifying scale and 2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravitationally and electromagnetically. (Think wave/particle)."

Consider the above when reading/considering my essay, and in keeping with what dreams are/involve as well; as I have definitively demonstrated the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light in/as dream experience (in and with time as well).

Dream experience is sensory experience, and it involves/includes physics (for many other reasons as well). The dream is real. What is ultimately possible in physics (including mathematically) is necessarily tied to the integrated, interactive, and natural extensiveness of being, thought, and [sensory] experience. In fact, reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to (or involving) what is the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought).

Dreams include and involve opposites, thereby adding to the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought. Indeed, this is why dream experience is considerably different from waking experience. Importantly (and fundamentally) gravity and electromagnetism are understood as adding to the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including space and thought).

Consider this:

Visually, the universal experience of the body is one of visual transparency (i.e., invisibility). Accordingly, when our bodies are visually distinguishable (or visible), then each of our visible experiences of the body (and of everything else for that matter) must necessarily be different (or unique); and individuals are then visually distinguishable as well. Since all of our bodies are visually transparent (or invisible), each of our bodies (considered individually) must necessarily be different when visible. Since the experience of the body is both visible and invisible, the visible experience of the body is necessarily changing (or inconstant), unique, and finite. The disintegration of the visual experience when an object is close to the eyes is demonstrative of the relationship between visibility and invisibility. The visible appearance of the body (including that of experience in general) is relatively unique, finite, and limited. (This conclusion is also in keeping with the fact that thought and vision are necessarily different.) The thoughtful understanding of the visible is properly understood as variable and finite in relation to the totality of experience, including that of the body.

Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. Our thoughts, emotions, and feelings are largely (or often) indiscernible to others in keeping with the fact that the body is transparent (or invisible inside the eye). Since the body is visually transparent (that is, the interior of the body and eye are experienced as invisible), what follows is made all the more clear. Since there is a proportionate reduction of both thought and feeling during dreams, the experience of the body is generally (or significantly) lacking; for thought is fundamentally rendered more like sensory experience in general. By involving the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense, dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling during dreams is why there is less memory and thought therein; and it is also significant that the unborn child is carried in the center of the body. Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are.

This duality (i.e., visible and invisible) of our visual experience lends itself to our concealment, the use of costumes, etc.; and it is an indispensable part of our growth and of our becoming other than we are as well. The experience of the body as being generally present (while waking), while also recollecting the body as being generally or significantly lacking (including visually) during the dream becomes more understandable. The visual experience of the body during dreams is generally variable, inconsistent, and lacking due to (that is, in part, and consistent with) the fact that the totality of the visual experience is closer when dreaming. The transparency of vision is an essential element of the totality of visual experience. Experience is not visually determinable or predictable, because experience is not visual in its essence.

Consider this sentence: "The disintegration of the visual experience when an object is close to the eyes is demonstrative of the relationship between visibility and invisibility." in relation to particle/wave; the interactive nature of thought, being, and experience; and dreams.

Consider the cylindrical aspect of dream experience as well.

You do now agree that my essay is original, important, and correct in unifying gravity and electromagnetism? If not, why (specifically please)?

I will check out Mr. Song's essay. It sounds interesting. Thank you.

Kindly consider the importance, as well, of the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks. Frank

Here are my two prior posts (that are referenced at the top of this post), for your ready reference:

Hi Jonathan. Your essay raises some interesting and needed points.

Kindly consider, and reply to, the following:

1) If we could demonstrate a balancing of scale whereby gravity and electromagnetism/light are repulsive and attractive (on balance), then that would be a big step forward in physics.

2) Balance and completeness go hand-in-hand, in theory and in life.

3) ASTRONOMICAL/TELESCOPIC OBSERVATIONS:

Astronomical observations are interactive creations of thought, to a significant extent. Astronomical observations involve a relative detachment, disintegration, and contraction of vision/visual experience as they relate to space, experience, and thought generally. Astronomical observations have significant similarities with dreams. Astronomical observations and dreams involve a narrowing/"telescoping" of vision. The redshift is indicative of increased gravity due to increased transparency/invisibility of space. Consider how the the setting Sun appears at a 90 degree angle in relation to gravity (overhead) -- red and in a transparent sky. Astronomical observations necessarily increase the size of what is seen, or nothing could be seen at all. The red shift is a reduction in energy/brightness; since an object that is farther away, and yet larger/visible, necessarily involves higher gravity.

Now consider the blackness of outer space, the position of red light on the visible light spectrum, and transparent/clear space. Consider this in relation to the black and clear/invisible spaces of the eye. Consider all of this in relation to "dark matter/"dark energy".

Dreams are visible (to the person having the dream) and yet invisible (to others). Moreover, while the body is generally or significantly absent/invisible in dreams, touch and the sight of the body may occur as well.

The body is invisible and visible -- the clear space of the eye is where vision begins, and this is of (and within) the body. Vision begins as invisible/transparent space inside the eye (and body).

5) The integrated extensiveness of being and experience not only go hand-in-hand, but also in and with time as well. You are correct on the fundamental importance of time.

I believe that the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general.

Kindly consider rating and commenting on my essay. My three posts under the essay are important as well. Thank you for your kind consideration.

I want us to bounce some ideas back and forth. I think that we can make some good headway. Any questions that you have regarding your essay are most welcome. Frank

==========

Hi Jonathan. Your essay might be in agreement with the following post. Is it?

Consider the nuclear strong force and gravitation in light of the following:

The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general. I agree with the geometrical approach -- the mathematically proven outcome in a fourth dimension of space -- as it has unified gravity and electromagnetism/light.

To unify gravity and electromagnetism/light fundamentally and comprehensively, balancing/unifying scale by demonstrating gravity as repulsive and attractive AS electromagnetic energy/light is required. It is critical to demonstrate electromagnetic energy/light as gravitational space. The unification/balancing/inclusion of both invisible and visible space is central to:

1) Balancing/unifying scale and...

2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravititationally and electromagnetically. Think wave/particle.

These ideas need to be applied to atomic structure/interactions, and to electromagnetism/light and gravity generally. How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

ATTN ALL:

The essay that should win is the one that best advances (fundamentally and originally) the understanding of sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism) IN GENERAL.

The ratings are unfair in this contest. You can see the: "I scratch your back, and you scratch mine" mentality in the catering, superficial, hollow, and fake exchanges of "pleasantries" which...

view entire post

ATTN ALL:

The essay that should win is the one that best advances (fundamentally and originally) the understanding of sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism) IN GENERAL.

The ratings are unfair in this contest. You can see the: "I scratch your back, and you scratch mine" mentality in the catering, superficial, hollow, and fake exchanges of "pleasantries" which certain essayists are selling/peddling.

This essay contest should be more about aggressive and sustained (yet civil, of course) objections and disagreements.

I will now teach you all about great meaning and significance in physics.

Moreover, my essay is relatively ignored, and it is rated incompetently and unfairly. I will now prove all of this (and definitively) in this post.

Hi Jonathan.

In reply to my prior posts at your essay page, you have now said:

"I just re-read your second post above and it made a bit more sense of something you were saying in the earlier post. Your statement at the end "How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea." is right on. Perhaps the key, as you say, is to recognize that there is both an attractive and repulsive component at work - which changes the effective action at different levels of scale. This makes unification simpler."

"We end up 1) Balancing/unifying scale and 2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravitationally and electromagnetically. (Think wave/particle)."

Consider the above when reading/considering my essay, and in keeping with what dreams are/involve as well; as I have definitively demonstrated the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light in/as dream experience (in and with time as well).

Dream experience is sensory experience, and it involves/includes physics (for many other reasons as well). The dream is real. What is ultimately possible in physics (including mathematically) is necessarily tied to the integrated, interactive, and natural extensiveness of being, thought, and [sensory] experience. In fact, reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to (or involving) what is the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought).

Dreams include and involve opposites, thereby adding to the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought. Indeed, this is why dream experience is considerably different from waking experience. Importantly (and fundamentally) gravity and electromagnetism are understood as adding to the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including space and thought).

Consider this:

Visually, the universal experience of the body is one of visual transparency (i.e., invisibility). Accordingly, when our bodies are visually distinguishable (or visible), then each of our visible experiences of the body (and of everything else for that matter) must necessarily be different (or unique); and individuals are then visually distinguishable as well. Since all of our bodies are visually transparent (or invisible), each of our bodies (considered individually) must necessarily be different when visible. Since the experience of the body is both visible and invisible, the visible experience of the body is necessarily changing (or inconstant), unique, and finite. The disintegration of the visual experience when an object is close to the eyes is demonstrative of the relationship between visibility and invisibility. The visible appearance of the body (including that of experience in general) is relatively unique, finite, and limited. (This conclusion is also in keeping with the fact that thought and vision are necessarily different.) The thoughtful understanding of the visible is properly understood as variable and finite in relation to the totality of experience, including that of the body.

Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. Our thoughts, emotions, and feelings are largely (or often) indiscernible to others in keeping with the fact that the body is transparent (or invisible inside the eye). Since the body is visually transparent (that is, the interior of the body and eye are experienced as invisible), what follows is made all the more clear. Since there is a proportionate reduction of both thought and feeling during dreams, the experience of the body is generally (or significantly) lacking; for thought is fundamentally rendered more like sensory experience in general. By involving the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense, dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling during dreams is why there is less memory and thought therein; and it is also significant that the unborn child is carried in the center of the body. Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are.

This duality (i.e., visible and invisible) of our visual experience lends itself to our concealment, the use of costumes, etc.; and it is an indispensable part of our growth and of our becoming other than we are as well. The experience of the body as being generally present (while waking), while also recollecting the body as being generally or significantly lacking (including visually) during the dream becomes more understandable. The visual experience of the body during dreams is generally variable, inconsistent, and lacking due to (that is, in part, and consistent with) the fact that the totality of the visual experience is closer when dreaming. The transparency of vision is an essential element of the totality of visual experience. Experience is not visually determinable or predictable, because experience is not visual in its essence.

Consider this sentence: "The disintegration of the visual experience when an object is close to the eyes is demonstrative of the relationship between visibility and invisibility." in relation to particle/wave; the interactive nature of thought, being, and experience; and dreams.

Consider the cylindrical aspect of dream experience as well.

You do now agree that my essay is original, important, and correct in unifying gravity and electromagnetism? If not, why (specifically please)?

I will check out Mr. Song's essay. It sounds interesting. Thank you.

Kindly consider the importance, as well, of the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks. Frank

Here are my two prior posts (that are referenced at the top of this post), for your ready reference:

Hi Jonathan. Your essay raises some interesting and needed points.

Kindly consider, and reply to, the following:

1) If we could demonstrate a balancing of scale whereby gravity and electromagnetism/light are repulsive and attractive (on balance), then that would be a big step forward in physics.

2) Balance and completeness go hand-in-hand, in theory and in life.

3) ASTRONOMICAL/TELESCOPIC OBSERVATIONS:

Astronomical observations are interactive creations of thought, to a significant extent. Astronomical observations involve a relative detachment, disintegration, and contraction of vision/visual experience as they relate to space, experience, and thought generally. Astronomical observations have significant similarities with dreams. Astronomical observations and dreams involve a narrowing/"telescoping" of vision. The redshift is indicative of increased gravity due to increased transparency/invisibility of space. Consider how the the setting Sun appears at a 90 degree angle in relation to gravity (overhead) -- red and in a transparent sky. Astronomical observations necessarily increase the size of what is seen, or nothing could be seen at all. The red shift is a reduction in energy/brightness; since an object that is farther away, and yet larger/visible, necessarily involves higher gravity.

Now consider the blackness of outer space, the position of red light on the visible light spectrum, and transparent/clear space. Consider this in relation to the black and clear/invisible spaces of the eye. Consider all of this in relation to "dark matter/"dark energy".

Dreams are visible (to the person having the dream) and yet invisible (to others). Moreover, while the body is generally or significantly absent/invisible in dreams, touch and the sight of the body may occur as well.

The body is invisible and visible -- the clear space of the eye is where vision begins, and this is of (and within) the body. Vision begins as invisible/transparent space inside the eye (and body).

5) The integrated extensiveness of being and experience not only go hand-in-hand, but also in and with time as well. You are correct on the fundamental importance of time.

I believe that the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general.

Kindly consider rating and commenting on my essay. My three posts under the essay are important as well. Thank you for your kind consideration.

I want us to bounce some ideas back and forth. I think that we can make some good headway. Any questions that you have regarding your essay are most welcome. Frank

==========

Hi Jonathan. Your essay might be in agreement with the following post. Is it?

Consider the nuclear strong force and gravitation in light of the following:

The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general. I agree with the geometrical approach -- the mathematically proven outcome in a fourth dimension of space -- as it has unified gravity and electromagnetism/light.

To unify gravity and electromagnetism/light fundamentally and comprehensively, balancing/unifying scale by demonstrating gravity as repulsive and attractive AS electromagnetic energy/light is required. It is critical to demonstrate electromagnetic energy/light as gravitational space. The unification/balancing/inclusion of both invisible and visible space is central to:

1) Balancing/unifying scale and...

2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravititationally and electromagnetically. Think wave/particle.

These ideas need to be applied to atomic structure/interactions, and to electromagnetism/light and gravity generally. How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Hello Frank,

Thank you for your many comments. I agree we have a lot to talk about. I re-read part of your essay earlier today, and understood some things I did not before. The comments above also clarify some of your points. I don't have time to address all the comments tonight, though, and probably not all for a while, as I'll be away from my computer. I will try to respond to the...

view entire post

Hello Frank,

Thank you for your many comments. I agree we have a lot to talk about. I re-read part of your essay earlier today, and understood some things I did not before. The comments above also clarify some of your points. I don't have time to address all the comments tonight, though, and probably not all for a while, as I'll be away from my computer. I will try to respond to the briefer comment left on my essay page, beforehand.

I think I'm starting to get a sense of your essay's message, and it's pretty cool. Dreams are a distillation of the waking experience, but something more too. They offer us freedoms we don't have in waking reality, but their reality is restricted too - as with the telescope analogy. When we're out during sleep our bodies are subject to gravity, and our mind wanders free. Perhaps in waking state it is the reverse. We can move our body, but our minds are subject to gravity.

And I can see there is a connection of electromagnetic and gravitic forces to be explored. I'm not sure if your construction, passes the test, yet. But I think you are on to something. Perhaps a balancing of forces by allowing both attraction and repulsion, and varying with scale, offers a possibility to unify things that has not been explored. It seems to be vaguely similar to what Narendra Nath is writing about.

I will definitely return to this thread when I can, as I think there is a lot of interesting ground to explore. Off for now to my page to respond there, and to perhaps one other thread, then off for a while.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

reply to this thread

ATTN: ALL I will now prove that how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is THE central and MOST valuable physical idea.

The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling (of the body) while dreaming/sleeping is very relevant. The completion and balancing that dreams/sleep give to the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light is consistent with the 90 degree...

view entire post

ATTN: ALL I will now prove that how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is THE central and MOST valuable physical idea.

The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling (of the body) while dreaming/sleeping is very relevant. The completion and balancing that dreams/sleep give to the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light is consistent with the 90 degree angle of the two experiences/states (waking and dreaming). (Gravity is fairly constant at/near the surface of the Earth.)

The extremes of distance/scale and speed point up the connection involving electromagnetic/gravitational space (e.g., the Sun and photons).

The dream combines (and includes) invisible and visible space in conjunction with exhibiting wave/particle duality.

The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general.

To unify gravity and electromagnetism/light fundamentally and comprehensively, balancing/unifying scale by demonstrating gravity as repulsive and attractive AS electromagnetic energy/light is required. It is critical to demonstrate electromagnetic energy/light as gravitational space. The unification/balancing/inclusion of both invisible and visible space is central to:

1) Balancing/unifying scale and...

2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravititationally and electromagnetically. Think wave/particle. Note that the repulsive and attractive aspect is manifest in the variable distances of space/distance in the dream (think of this in relation to touch and feeling as well).

These ideas need to be applied to atomic structure/interactions, and to electromagnetism/light and gravity generally. How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea. Do you see how this post (and my essay) cover/include: space, time, matter, energy, wave/particle, balancing/varying scale, repulsive/attractive, and visible/invisible?

You can see how the aspect of cylindrical space also applies to/is manifest in dream experience. Schroedinger was perplexed enough by life to suggest a new type of physical law. This new physical law is the known mathematical union of Einstein's theory of gravity and Maxwell's theory of light in a fourth spatial dimension. It is common sense (and obvious) that this unification must be (and is) present in our experience. The physical reality of said unification is dream experience. I have proven this definitively (in detail and with specifics). Note that I have demonstrated how time and space are both balanced in a fourth dimension. (I am not so concerned with what is the Kaluza-Klein interpretation of the unification as I am with the unification itself.) Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light).

Reductionist thinkers tend to pick apart my essay, as they lack [what is a greater] integrated extensiveness in their thinking.

The increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations is very important/relevant as well.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Hi Jonathan (and all other reviewers of this essay):

This post clearly demonstrates the importance of my essay. I will now prove that how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is THE central and MOST valuable physical idea.

The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling (of the body) while dreaming/sleeping is very relevant. The completion and balancing...

view entire post

Hi Jonathan (and all other reviewers of this essay):

This post clearly demonstrates the importance of my essay. I will now prove that how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is THE central and MOST valuable physical idea.

The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling (of the body) while dreaming/sleeping is very relevant. The completion and balancing that dreams/sleep give to the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light is consistent with the 90 degree angle of the two experiences/states (waking and dreaming). (Gravity is fairly constant at/near the surface of the Earth.)

The extremes of distance/scale and speed point up the connection involving electromagnetic/gravitational space (e.g., the Sun and photons).

The dream combines (and includes) invisible and visible space in conjunction with exhibiting wave/particle duality.

The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general.

To unify gravity and electromagnetism/light fundamentally and comprehensively, balancing/unifying scale by demonstrating gravity as repulsive and attractive AS electromagnetic energy/light is required. It is critical to demonstrate electromagnetic energy/light as gravitational space. The unification/balancing/inclusion of both invisible and visible space is central to:

1) Balancing/unifying scale and...

2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravititationally and electromagnetically. Think wave/particle. Note that the repulsive and attractive aspect is manifest in the variable distances of space/distance in the dream (think of this in relation to touch and feeling as well).

These ideas need to be applied to atomic structure/interactions, and to electromagnetism/light and gravity generally. How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea. Do you see how this post (and my essay) cover/include: space, time, matter, energy, wave/particle, balancing/varying scale, repulsive/attractive, and visible/invisible?

You can see how the aspect of cylindrical space also applies to/is manifest in dream experience. Schroedinger was perplexed enough by life to suggest a new type of physical law. This new physical law is the known mathematical union of Einstein's theory of gravity and Maxwell's theory of light in a fourth spatial dimension. It is common sense (and obvious) that this unification must be (and is) present in our experience. The physical reality of said unification is dream experience. I have proven this definitively (in detail and with specifics). Note that I have demonstrated how time and space are both balanced in a fourth dimension. (I am not so concerned with what is the Kaluza-Klein interpretation of the unification as I am with the unification itself.) Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light).

Reductionist thinkers tend to pick apart my essay, as they lack [what is a greater] integrated extensiveness in their thinking/knowledge.

The increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations is very important/relevant as well.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Hi Frank,

I did read your essay here are some thoughts:

1. You mentioned that "Reductionist thinkers tend to pick apart my essay, as they lack [what is a greater] integrated extensiveness in their thinking."

You chose a difficult road in entering this contest because reductionist thinkers are the vast majority in FQXi. I am a reductionist thinker myself except of course...

view entire post

Hi Frank,

I did read your essay here are some thoughts:

1. You mentioned that "Reductionist thinkers tend to pick apart my essay, as they lack [what is a greater] integrated extensiveness in their thinking."

You chose a difficult road in entering this contest because reductionist thinkers are the vast majority in FQXi. I am a reductionist thinker myself except of course when I am confronted by a tiger, at which point I become a very religious integrated extensive.

2. I agree with your intuition about space-time containing energy, real energy and not the zero point energy kind. My work points to this and I think experiments can be performed to show this.

3. You have had some insight about dreams and how they connect to physical phenomena. You may be correct but you have not shown me in a way I can understand how to get to this realization.

4. It is like Zeno telling the world that reality is pure being, and physical object reality along with thinking is an illusion. It is my belief that Zeno did not make much headway with his saying over and over again that reality is pure being. That is when he wrote his book of paradoxes that at least can be appreciated by all those reductionist Greeks.

5. You work has expanded the range of the essay contest. And the judging is yet to be done.

Best of Luck,

Don L.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Frank,

I have a question. Can you simplify what you are saying down to the bare bones? In other words, words can shape the emotions of the reader. People trained in hard core physics and mathematics understand this. But words can also be used to hide lack of thoughtful content. I often have to boil my own ideas down to their bare bones meaning; which makes the actual mechanics of the...

view entire post

Frank,

I have a question. Can you simplify what you are saying down to the bare bones? In other words, words can shape the emotions of the reader. People trained in hard core physics and mathematics understand this. But words can also be used to hide lack of thoughtful content. I often have to boil my own ideas down to their bare bones meaning; which makes the actual mechanics of the idea more clear. Dictionaries are a great example. They tell you the meaning as clearly, and with as few words as possible. Can you tell us what you mean as tersely, in as few words, as absolutely necessary to convey your idea?

view post as summary

reply to this thread

All FQXi participants: IMPORTANT -- Compared to the blackness of space, the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations is very important. This allows us to see farther. But this also means, again, that space is becoming increasingly invisible/transparent. This occurs in dreams, as space is increasingly invisible in dreams; in fact, the experience of space...

view entire post

All FQXi participants: IMPORTANT -- Compared to the blackness of space, the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations is very important. This allows us to see farther. But this also means, again, that space is becoming increasingly invisible/transparent. This occurs in dreams, as space is increasingly invisible in dreams; in fact, the experience of space in dreams is both invisible AND visible. (This is why you may or may not touch what you see in the dream as well.) Astronomical observations, to a significant extent, are interactive creations of thought. My essay talks about this.

The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling in dreams and the increase in the invisibility/transparency of space therein not only relate to the sensory experience [therein] being more like thought, but this also relates to/is consistent with the relative reduction in the brightness/feeling of the red Sun (including the redshift). Astronomical/telescopic observations have significant similarities with dreams.

Note the transparent space/sky around the larger and red [setting] sun.

The line (or feeling) of gravity is altered/reduced -- in comparison with the Sun being overhead, when it is brighter -- so the Sun appears differently (and is not as bright) when it is in front of us. This is consistent with the reduction of gravity/feeling/brightness in the dream, with the increased invisibility/transparency of the space therein, and with the eyes being (basically) locked forward. (Telescopic/astronomical observations make the objects larger, or they could not be seen at all.)

(Note that thoughts are relatively shifting and variable, so dream vision is also relatively shifting and variable.) In relation to the increased transparency/invisibility of space, is there not a uniformity of gravity/acceleration (that would provide an additional binding energy)regarding the outer stars accelerating more than they should be (in, say, spiral galaxies)? Consider objects near Earth in the invisible/transparent space/sky.

Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general, thereby unifying gravity and electromagnetism/light. Note that the Earth is in a relatively smaller space (the transparent/invisible sky) compared to that of the Sun.

The setting Sun looks more like the Earth because it feels more like the Earth WHEN SEEN. (And because it is also seen in/with a transparent/invisible sky.)

The integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand.

The world requires and involves man.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

TO: All FQXi judges and reviewers of this essay, and Jonathan, Don, Ray, Steve, and Florin as well:

I have demonstrated the equivalency of extension in time and space at a three to one ratio in keeping with the following (below). I have shown that the integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand in and with time. What I will now demonstrate with regard to time alone is...

view entire post

TO: All FQXi judges and reviewers of this essay, and Jonathan, Don, Ray, Steve, and Florin as well:

I have demonstrated the equivalency of extension in time and space at a three to one ratio in keeping with the following (below). I have shown that the integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand in and with time. What I will now demonstrate with regard to time alone is GIGANTIC.

Dreams unify gravity and electromagnetism/light by involving what is [the gravitational and electromagnetic/light] mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. Gravity and electromagnetism/light are both attractive and repulsive in the dream.

I have demonstrated gravity as attractive and repulsive, in keeping with relatively constant (and proper) lighting, energy, and brightness, in a space that is (at once) understood to be larger/additive and relatively smaller. The space is also invisible and visible at once. The distance (or size) of space in the dream is dynamic or variable as well.

Electromagnetism/light is not only associated with extremes of size (e.g., photons and the Sun, in comparison with the Earth and typical/ordinary space), but also with extremes of gravity (or gravitational influence).

I have demonstrated electromagnetism/light as gravitational space; as space manifests as both gravitational and electromagnetic/light energy (involving constant energy as well).

Now comes definitive and further mathematical proof regarding said unification; and, importantly, this comes in addition to what is the already known/demonstrated mathematical union of Maxwell's and Einstein's theories in a fourth dimension of space.

This further mathematical demonstration/proof of the subject unification is now provided in what is also a fundamental, simple, and convincing fashion; as I have shown the three to one (one third) relation of both space (the three space dimensions in relation to the fourth space dimension) and time (3 to 1 in Einstein’s theory of gravity) in dreams; as dreams occur during the one third of our lives that we spend sleeping. In other words, the extension in space (three to one, or one third) is consistent with extension in time as well. Note: there are three parts of time — past, present, future.

Since the self has extensiveness of being and experience (in and with time) in conjunction with the integrated and natural extensiveness of sensory experience, we spend less time dreaming (and sleeping) than waking. The integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand in hand.

Dreams are an emotional experience that occur during the one third of our lives that we spend sleeping, because emotion is one part (or one third) of feeling, emotion, and thought. Consistent with this, both feeling and thought are proportionately reduced in the dream. Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. Dreams are essential for thoughtful and emotional balance, integration, comprehensiveness, consistency, and resiliency. Indeed, emotion that is comprehensive and balanced advances consciousness. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are.

The reduction in the range of feeling that occurs during dream experience is associated with a reduction in both thought and experience in general.

Thought involves a relative reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling. In keeping with this, dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. Accordingly, both thought and also the range and extensiveness of feeling are proportionately reduced in the dream. (This reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling during dreams is consistent with the fact that the experience of smell very rarely occurs therein.) Since there is a proportionate reduction of both thought and feeling during dreams, the experience of the body is generally (or significantly) lacking; for thought is fundamentally rendered more like sensory experience in general. Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. By involving the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense, dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling during dreams is why there is less memory and thought therein.

----------

What is ultimately possible in physics (including mathematically) is necessarily tied to the integrated, interactive, and natural extensiveness of being, thought, and [sensory] experience. In fact, reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to (or involving) what is the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought). --- It is readily apparent that my essay rating is ridiculously incompetent/unfair/inaccurate on this basis alone.

Moreover, what my essay says about astronomical observations (and my posts under my essay) is HUGE.

Finally, what my essay says about sensory experience in general is HUGE.

The significance of my essay in regard to being central to an improved understanding of physics in general is undeniable.

I have demonstrated the sensory (i.e., physical) experience/basis of the unification of gravity (GR) and electromagnetism/light (Maxwell's theory of light) in a fourth dimension of space.

Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type of physical law." -- p. 258 -- See Paul Davies book The Fifth Miracle. Also see De Duve: "Life and mind emerge...as natural manifestations of matter, written into the fabric of the universe." -- p.252 thereof. And Darwin: "The principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence, of some general law" -- p.252 thereof. Look at the words "GENERAL law"! --- PERFECT!

This physical law is said unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light. The physical (and sensory) reality/experience/basis/correspondence of/to this law is dream experience. I have proven this overwhelmingly (in detail and with specifics).

Many of you will be shocked, but shouldn't be, when I win this essay contest. Although there are many fine essays in this contest, I have earned it; and I deserve it.

From Jonathan Dickau (essay contestant), and I quote him in the following two paragraphs:

"I just re-read your second post above and it made a bit more sense of something you were saying in the earlier post. Your statement at the end "How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea." is right on. Perhaps the key, as you say, is to recognize that there is both an attractive and repulsive component at work - which changes the effective action at different levels of scale. This makes unification simpler."

"We end up 1) Balancing/unifying scale and 2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravitationally and electromagnetically. (Think wave/particle)."

Clearly, this (as well) is why my essay is going to (and should) win!

It is important to read ALL of my prior posts under my essay in order to properly understand, rate, and judge this essay. Anyone who rates this essay should be providing comments. It is much easier to be critical than correct.

From a prior post of mine, I have written:

"The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general. I agree with the geometrical approach -- the mathematically proven outcome in a fourth dimension of space -- as it has unified gravity and electromagnetism/light.

To unify gravity and electromagnetism/light fundamentally and comprehensively, balancing/unifying scale by demonstrating gravity as repulsive and attractive AS electromagnetic energy/light is required. It is critical to demonstrate electromagnetic energy/light as gravitational space. The unification/balancing/inclusion of both invisible and visible space is central to:

1) Balancing/unifying scale and...

2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravititationally and electromagnetically. Think wave/particle.

These ideas need to be applied to atomic structure/interactions, and to electromagnetism/light and gravity generally. How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea."

Your thoughtful, significant, meaningful, constructive, and/or accurate/truthful comments and questions are very welcome, and they will be responded to.

Frank Martin DiMeglio

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Why I am going to win this essay contest and also The Nobel Prize in Physics:

"It is the theory which decides what we can observe..." -- Einstein

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Einstein

James Clerk Maxwell – "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."

Schroedinger was...

view entire post

Why I am going to win this essay contest and also The Nobel Prize in Physics:

"It is the theory which decides what we can observe..." -- Einstein

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Einstein

James Clerk Maxwell – "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."

Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type of physical law." -- p. 258 -- See Paul Davies' book The Fifth Miracle. Also see De Duve: "Life and mind emerge...as natural manifestations of matter, written into the fabric of the universe." -- p.252 thereof. And Darwin: "The principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence, of some general law" -- p.252 thereof. Look at the words "GENERAL law"! --- PERFECT!

IMPORTANTLY, now consider ALL of the above with what follows:

This physical and "general" law is the known unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light. The physical (and sensory) reality/experience/basis of this law (and unification) is dream experience, whereby thought is more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light). The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience -- this clearly relates to memory, art, genius, dreams, being "one with the music", and telescopic/astronomical observations.

To think that the unification of General Relativity and Maxwell's Theory of Light -- that is already mathematically PROVEN by the addition of a spatial dimension to Einstein's theory -- is not readily and significantly apparent in our experience is one of the greatest oversights or blunders of common sense that has ever occurred. I have definitively proven and demonstrated that this unification occurs in/as dream experience.

Do you agree? -- Yes or no? -- If not, then why? If I am correct (and I am), I am entitled to/deserving of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Also, do you agree with the following?:

In relation to the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations (that makes these

observations possible) -- is there not a uniformity of gravity/acceleration (that would provide an additional binding energy) regarding the outer stars accelerating more than they should be (in, say, spiral galaxies)? Consider this in conjunction with objects near Earth (in the invisible/transparent space/sky). Isn't the redshift consistent with/indicative of the increased transparency/invisibility of space that makes such astronomical/telescopic observations possible? Is all of this not true as well? -- Yes or no please? If not, then why, specifically please? Thanks.

It is important to also read (and closely consider) all of my posts under my essay as well.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Hello again Frank,

I have a question for you, or an idea to bounce off of you. If it is granted that the observable universe (the material or physical) is part of a larger whole that includes the realm of the abstract or of abstractions, some of your ideas might make sense - as applicable to a physical theory - however, some questions still remain. We must ask whether the 'real' or...

view entire post

Hello again Frank,

I have a question for you, or an idea to bounce off of you. If it is granted that the observable universe (the material or physical) is part of a larger whole that includes the realm of the abstract or of abstractions, some of your ideas might make sense - as applicable to a physical theory - however, some questions still remain. We must ask whether the 'real' or 'universal' abstract is comparable with our ideas of the subjective realm, or if the process stages (and levels of abstraction) involved in generating the form we can observe are instead different from those we use to cognize observable reality. In Constructive Mathematics, it is found that a similar set of steps are usable in determining a particular condition, whether we mean 'to measure' or 'to construct' by the word determination.

It may be true, therefore, that we can make a comparison of the cognitive process and the generative process, as I did in Quantum Biosystems Vol 1- no 1. However; you have not shown a clear basis for this kind of assumption in your essay and forum entries. It seems that you have a vague notion about how dreams should relate to Physics, but there is considerable work required for you to show how the two are connected. I am trying to put some tools in your hands which may or may not be helpful. But the questions remain.

Is nature's version of the abstract realm the same as our version relating to subjective experience? What aspects do the two share, or are they entirely different? Is nature perhaps more mathematical or logical, and human dreams more emotional? Or are the two comparable in your view? If so, can you explain why this is so, or why nature does not seem to respond to our emotional outbursts? There may be a similarity between the two landscapes, but I am still confused as to how the experience we have in dreams can allow a unification of Electromagnetism with Gravity. Are we to understand that since we are not constrained to remain on the ground in our dreams, we have somehow conquered a conceptual difficulty that keeps us rooted to the Earth in the waking state?

I don't mean to be obtuse, but I figure that if some of the relevant issues and objections are spelled out, it may help you to deal with them. And if you can spell some of the answers out, maybe some of us who are too dense to fly - even in our dreams - can get a clue about why you feel they are so important to our evolving a better Physics. So you can label me as unconvinced but still willing to open my mind to your ideas. I would like to understand what it is you are trying to say, and why you feel it is important to Physics.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Thank you Frank,

I appreciate your taking time for a detailed answer here. Please understand that even when I am in relative agreement with an author, I still like to ask questions, partly in an attempt to see if that author can prove his or her point by stating things differently, rather than merely quoting themselves. When I read the essay of Robert Oldershaw, for example, I thought I...

view entire post

Thank you Frank,

I appreciate your taking time for a detailed answer here. Please understand that even when I am in relative agreement with an author, I still like to ask questions, partly in an attempt to see if that author can prove his or her point by stating things differently, rather than merely quoting themselves. When I read the essay of Robert Oldershaw, for example, I thought I agreed with almost every point he made. But when I asked him to explain or justify his reasoning, the conversation rapidly broke down, in part because he feels that if I accept that the universe has no beginning, questions like 'why?' or 'how did it get the way it is?' are meaningless. So while I thought I understood and agreed with 90% of his essay, he apparently felt that unless I accepted the parts I thought were questionable, I really didn't agree with his ideas at all.

So Robert and I are at an impasse, at least until I can do more reading of materials that support his premises. I fear you and I may be at an impasse too, but your response shows me that you are at least willing to try explaining what I do not yet understand and this is good. It may be necessary for you to spell the same ideas out a number of ways, before it really makes sense to everyone. That's the great thing about having this forum. Some of the core ideas of Darryl Leiter's essay were cryptically worded, but when those ideas came out in the forum - and were re-explained - it became apparent that his theory is brilliant. The thing is that he is steeped in explaining things a certain way, and that way didn't quite make sense to some others. So your idea may be brilliant too, but unless you can re-frame the essential concepts effectively, people may not figure that out.

I sense that there is a meaningful message behind your words. But that doesn't mean that everything you have said makes sense to me. I may re-read your essay - keeping some of the explanations in mind, but I make no guarantees I'll get to it before Friday night, or that it will change my opinion to do so. I have a lot on my plate, and I've also got plans to read a few more essays over the next 35 Hours. So; we'll have to see.

But I wish you the best of luck, getting your message out and across.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Dear Frank,

I know that you are familiar with Edwin Eugene Klingman's essay that unites Gravity and Consciousness. His ideas are as original as yours that unify the Dream, Gravity and Electromagnetism. In my opinion, you are both appealing to a Consciousness/ Dream/ Mind/ Soul that may actually be more complicated and less understood than the Gravitational phenomena you are trying to...

view entire post

Dear Frank,

I know that you are familiar with Edwin Eugene Klingman's essay that unites Gravity and Consciousness. His ideas are as original as yours that unify the Dream, Gravity and Electromagnetism. In my opinion, you are both appealing to a Consciousness/ Dream/ Mind/ Soul that may actually be more complicated and less understood than the Gravitational phenomena you are trying to describe. The important distinction is that EE is using models and mathematics to build a framework to support his ideas. On originality of concept, you both deserve an "A". On follow-though and model-building, EE deserves a "Nobel effort". This is where your idea lacks detail. The problem with both ideas is that falsification does not seem possible. How do we measure EE's "C" consciousness field? How do we analyze the Dream? With new theories/ models/ ideas there is a higher probability that the model is incorrect rather than correct. If a theory/ model/ idea cannot be proven or disproven, then it is really difficult to call it science.

I consider myself a physicist and a mathematician. Admittedly, I try to keep my philosophy as separate as possible (although I agree with Petkov's essay that the two must be integrated), and I don't normally put psychology in the same category, but I understand your background and emphasis. My TOE model may also have problems with falsification. I would appeal to two expectations: 1) my model uses existing lattice symmetries such as tetrahedral (FCC), octahedral, icosahedral, Gosset and Leech, and 2) I expect a new class of particles at the 10⁴ TeV scale that cosmic rays may be able to analyze (see my book).

The advantage of a contest like this is that we have the opportunity to read other intelligent and interesting people's ideas and build relationships and alliances with those people. Lawrence Crowell and I have been sharing ideas for the past few months. I expect it to be mutually beneficial. You could learn a lot from people such as EE…

Dear Edwin Eugene,

I also once worked with NASA as an American Society for Engineering Education Summer Faculty Fellow at the Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA – Huntsville, Alabama) during the Summers of '97 and '98. I ran GEANT event simulation studies on their Scintillating Optical Fiber Calorimeter (SOFCAL) Cosmic Ray detector – thus my nickname "Dr. Cosmic Ray". These days, I am more of a business man than a physicist. At least I get to play with physics as a hobby.

Your ideas are probably too original. I like your modeling and mathematics, but ultimately, don't know if your ideas can be falsified. Thus, I don't know how to score your paper. Do you have any responses that may help me in my deliberation?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread