Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 9:25am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Vladimir Tamari: on 9/29/12 at 11:12am UTC, wrote Hello Frank. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80...

James Hoover: on 9/28/12 at 22:17pm UTC, wrote Frank, For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of...

Hoang Hai: on 9/26/12 at 1:55am UTC, wrote Dear Uncle Frank "An assumption can stifle scientific inquiry if it is...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 14:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/7/12 at 0:01am UTC, wrote Frank I like numerological games conclusion from them is my essay. ...

Anton Vrba: on 9/2/12 at 7:40am UTC, wrote Hi Frank, I enjoyed your essay and your arguments. Yes, sadly, the...

George: on 8/28/12 at 20:42pm UTC, wrote To Frank 1) The terminology, that we using, is imperfect actually. What we...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

John Cox: "Lorraine, That clarifies, thanks. I'd be in the camp that argues for a..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Steve Dufourny: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT ARTICLES

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM
January 21, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: House of Cards Built One Meter at a Time by Frank H. Makinson [refresh]

Author Frank H Makinson wrote on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 15:58 GMT
Essay Abstract

A physical law assumption is based upon a knowledge set extracted using observation and measurement techniques available at the time the assumption was made. An assumption can stifle scientific inquiry if it is allowed to become a protected paradigm, and thus, unchallengeable. Units of measure are a core element of physical law inquiry and an erroneous assumption used in selecting the base units can hinder the inquiry process significantly.

Author Bio

The author has a BS EE (1958) and thought he was retired as an active participant in science issues. A long ignored assumption caught the authors attention, which led to identifying the methodology that allows the base units of measure to be mathematically defined.

Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 15:16 GMT
Dear Mr. Makinson,

One real Universe can only have one real number and that real number of the Universe can be symbolized by using a 1U. One real Universe can only have one real dimension and that real number of a dimension can be symbolized by using a 1d. One real Universe can only stay in one real place and that real number of a location can be symbolized by using a 1l. There is only one of me and there is only one of you. There is only one of anything and there is only one of everything. I found your essay engrossing.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank H Makinson replied on Jun. 26, 2012 @ 16:51 GMT
Joe Fisher, In my essay I did not mention any philosophical implications as to the significance of a unit of measure. However, if you read the reference cited in the essay, [12] or [13], you will find the term "intrinsic unit," and every specific intrinsic unit, intrinsic length, intrinsic frequency and intrinsic time has a value of 1, the descriptor identifying its dimensional function; this is similar in concept to the symbols used in your post.

In the essay, I did note that a base unit of energy can now be defined, which would have a value of 1, as the reference point for the energy value was identified.

The purpose of my essay to to bring to the attention of the scientific community that SI units are man-made artificial units which have no valid association with the physical constants they are intended to measure. The propaganda we have been exposed to since early childhood, and on, has inured us to even thinking about the scientific validity of SI units.

In searching for an NIST reference I found a better NIST URL than the one I cited in my essay. http://www.nist.gov/pml/div684/fcdc/si-units.cfm

The site actual reiterates the 2005 CCU statement I cited in my essay.

You might want to print out a copy of the NIST flow chart diagram for SI units.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/SIDiagramColor.pdf

http
://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/SIDiagramBW.pdf

Please note that the Ampere is an SI base unit, but it is defined in terms of the Newton, which is not a base unit.

Frank Makinson replied on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 03:49 GMT
I noticed I didn't use the proper syntax for the links in the preceding post.

SI DiagramColor

SI DiagramBW

I don't know how a base unit, such as the Ampere, can be defined by a non-base unit, the Newton.

"The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed 1 meter apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2 x 10-7 newton per meter of length"

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank H Makinson replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 03:39 GMT
Below, I have put a direct link for the URLs in the IEEE paper cited in my essay.

Methodology Postprint

IEEE Methodology

As of Jan 2011, IEEE no longer allows authors to post the published version.

The published IEEE version has a image of Euclid on the title page with a rather unique alteration, it has two right triangles on Euclid's tablet that are labeled in English.

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 15:38 GMT
Hello,

I did not follow one aspect of the argument in your paper: If I understood correctly, you are arguing that it is better to redefine our base units in terms of universal fundamental constants, rather than in terms of SI base units of measure. But how do you want to implement this? Would, for example, according to your argument a better set of base units be action, speed and inverse ( density*time squared) , and then use the Planck units to derive the more familiar units of length, time and mass? Or did you have a different way of implementing this in mind? Also, how would this be different from the already relatively common practice among theorists to set hbar=c=G=1? It would have been helpful to share some details on that in your essay.

Thank you,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank H Makinson wrote on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT
Armin,

Although the concept in my IEEE paper, which I shall refer to as the Methodology, uses very simple mathematics, it presented information that is not in the textbooks. Electrical engineers (EE) are not taught that the inverse relationship between wavelength and frequency can be presented using a pair of right triangles. The Methodology paper was not the place to suggest a specific implementation process. I was able to make a few general suggestions on implementation in the Benefits section, a section that was not in my original submitted paper; it was requested by the IEEE editor-in-charge.

{Armin quote}"If I understood correctly, you are arguing that it is better to redefine our base units in terms of universal fundamental constants, rather than in terms of SI base units of measure."

That is the view of the CCU of the IUPAP which recommended that all the SI base units should be redefined in terms of fundamental physical constants, and the BIPM is attempting to do so.

BIPM New SI

NIST specifically reiterates the position that the SI base units are to be redefined in terms of fundamental constants.

SI Fundamental Constants

{NIST quote}"There is currently interest in redefining some of the SI units in terms of fundamental constants."

The CCU recommended all SI base units be redefined.

Please note that the geometric-mathematical relationship presented in the Methodology results in the speed-of-light (SOL) and its related electromagnetic (EM) frequency having the same numeric value.
$2\pi*sqrt2$

A unit of energy can be defined as having a numeric value of 1 at that same numeric value. Read the Konstantin Tomilin article referenced. I quoted the last sentence in that article.

Setting hbar=c=G=1 is a mathematical crutch to avoid the unwieldy numbers. The Methodology defines c in terms of basic mathematical constants, which are not mathematically unwieldy numbers. When hbar, G and Epison0 are properly defined, I suspect they too will be unwieldy.

I have sent emails to individuals in BIPM and NIST referencing the existence of the IEEE Methodology paper. I am familiar with some of the internal machinations of large government bureaucracies, and at the top of their priorities is maintaining the existence of the bureaucracy. As I stated in my essay, I don't expect the BIPM or NIST to take an action that would diminish their influence; they will ignore the IEEE paper.

Author Frank H Makinson replied on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 19:38 GMT
Correction to last post.

"Setting hbar=c=G=1 is a mathematical crutch to avoid the unwieldy numbers. The Methodology defines c in terms of basic mathematical constants, which are not mathematically unwieldy numbers. When hbar, G and Epison0 are properly defined, I suspect they too will be unwieldy."

Should read, "Setting hbar=c=G=1 is a mathematical crutch to avoid the unwieldy numbers. The Methodology defines c in terms of basic mathematical constants, which are not mathematically unwieldy numbers. When hbar, G and Epison0 are properly defined, I suspect they will not be unwieldy."

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Hi Frank,

I agree that units should be chosen that pertain to constants. In my work I use the SI system but refer to it as the mks system. That is because I write for the general audience. SI may appear mysterious while mks seems self suggesting as to what its units are.

I found good reason to use the mks system over others. The reason is that it defines important fundamental properties units with empirically based definitions and does not include the practice of setting poportionality constants to unity. I found both of these good points to be required in a good system of units.

In the end though the mks system is not suitable as a univrsal set of units. The reason I say this is because it includes arbitrarily indefinable units such as kilograms and degrees. My own work is based solely upon the variability of the speed of light. Therefore, my attempts to establish a universal set of units comes fully from the properties of light.

I have written two essays elswhere about the problems that are self-inflicted onto theoretical physics by the use of fallible systems of units.

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank H Makinson wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 21:48 GMT
James,

My technical education, electrical engineering, preceded the 1960s, thus I was exposed to pre-SI units extensively, such as British, cgs and mks units. Depending upon who I was interfacing with, I used the units they were familiar with. Regardless of the system of units, I found the method of selecting their sizes basically arbitrary, being based upon some issue that was deemed important at the time the size was selected, which definitely was not related to fundamental physical constants.

The concept presented in the Methodology indicates that scientific basic units of measure can be established mathematically, and this includes the duration for a unit of time. The key to the Methodology was selecting the proper unit values for the wavelength and frequency triangles, but the physical size of these unit values did not have to be known.

Note that the speed of light is a key parameter of the Methodology, but its value and the units by which it is defined did not have to be known beforehand. The term "speed of light" (SOL) applies to the propagation velocity of all electromagnetic (EM) waves. When the term SOL was first used it was not known that light was an EM phenomenon. Visible light is the most obvious of the EM emissions that constantly bathe the universe.

The Methodology reveals that the emission frequency of neutral hydrogen, often referred to as the 21 cm line, is a fundamental parameter of the physical law relationship between wavelength and frequency. I would have liked to have stated, "the 21 cm emission frequency is the most important EM frequency value in the universe," but that would not have passed peer review.

Your statement, "My own work is based solely upon the variability of the speed of light. Therefore, my attempts to establish a universal set of units comes fully from the properties of light.", essentially agrees with the approach used in identifying the Methodology. Changing "properties of light" to "properties of electromagnetic emissions" would completely match the approach used in identifying the Methodology.

James A Putnam replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 22:04 GMT
Hi Frank,

I will answer more extensively, but, wanted to address my use of the word 'light'. I do use the word light to represent all electromagnetic frequencies. I chose to do this, along with many physicists, when I began to write about physics. The word electromagnetism gets tiring very quickly. Poets don't wite about electromagnetism. They do write about 'light'. Light lasts. When I wish to speak of visible light, I call it 'visible light'. I find that this practice works much better as an author.

James

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 01:06 GMT
Dear Professor Frank

I enjoyed your essay, and completely agree with your analysis of how various assumptions take hold in the minds of generations of physicists and make any change extremely difficult.

Your message about how the use of certain units and methodology in measurement and theory hinders progress is loud and clear.

Take the humble second, for example, it is ever-present and ticks on our wrists, in our mind and equations. But is time itself real? I know this is not exactly what your essay is about but it shows the power of units to give authority. More importantly for me is Planck's constant being known as a measure of action. Fine. But it is also a measure of angular momentum, and I have built a whole Beautiful Universe Theory on this.

These are 'secondary' examples of the misunderstanding of units, but they demonstrate the unacceptable power of mainstream ideas over innovative ones just because they are mainstream. My own program for a Kuhnian paradign shift is in the Fix Physics! essay. I would be honored if you would read and comment on my papers.

With best wishes

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank H Makinson wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 15:52 GMT
I have replicated the John Merryman posts in essay topic 1316 to this topic, as the posts concern issues relevant to this essay.

---

John Merryman replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 23:19 GMT

Frank,

Temperature is also a defined unit of measure. Why is it ok to conflate the measure of rate of change/time, with the measure of space, but no one conflates the scalar measure of activity/temperature with that of space? Considering there is no space without some degree of temperature and if we used ideal gas laws, it would be as easy to correlate temperature with volume, as it is to use the velocity of light to correlate duration and distance.

Time is a measure of change. Distance, area and volume are measures of space.

Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 00:40 GMT

John,

I addressed the issue of the unit of time in the essay, temperature is not mentioned anywhere within it.

The current SI definition for temperature, the Kelvin, is not based upon any physical constants, it is based upon the characteristics of a particular molecular compound. "The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water."

Kelvin

It is my opinion that the scientific unit for temperature should be defined as an energy level, but SI does not have a base unit of energy to even consider a starting point.

John Merryman replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 03:33 GMT

Frank,

Sorry for not reading your paper yet, due to a lack of personal time.

Yes, temperature is generally thought of in terms of molecular activity, but it's only institutional bias that radioactive processes are not normally included. Step in a pool of radioactive water and while you may not immediately sense the burn, you will still be definitely burned.

What is the base unit of time? Some cycle or vibration of a cesium atom? So a particular duration of this atomic activity is a constant, but a scalar measure of its action wouldn't also be a constant?

The point I keep making is that while we think of duration as a kind of temporal distance from one event to another, along which the present moves, logically it is the changing configuration of what is present, so that it is the events going from being future to being past. Time then being a measure of actions occurring within the present, not external to it. Duration is a bit like the moonwalk; action without actually moving forward.

........

Author Frank H Makinson replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 16:16 GMT
John,

Temperature as we currently use it will need to be displayed just like it is now, Fahrenheit or Centigrade for use by the population, and a temperature scale somewhat like the Kelvin scale for scientific use, but the scientific scale should be defined in relationship to a base unit of energy. The basis for a base unit of energy is mentioned in the IEEE paper cited in my essay.

The same IEEE paper describes the basis for a unit of time, and it is related to a very well known electromagnetic emission, often referred to the 21 cm line.

Action is a change of state, and it doesn't have to move anywhere.

John Merryman replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 02:42 GMT
Frank,

I did skim your essay when it first came up and remember liking the general sense of bringing order to a chaotic situation. Unfortunately I've been a little too busy lately to do justice to any of these conversations. I wasn't trying to be rude on Georgina's thread, but she and I have our points of agreement and tend to take similar positions in these conversations. I realize your point was more about the need to clearly define the terms used, according to accepted understandings. My point about time and temperature being both measures of action does push the limits of what is accepted to be understood, but I do feel there is a point of logic to be made there. As I see it and as I explain in my essay, a big problem in physics is the natural fixation on time as a linear progression from past to future, rather than the changing configuration of the physically extant turning future into past, especially since measuring units of time enforces the former assumption. It is a case of missing the forest for the trees. Of losing sight of the larger picture by focusing on the details.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT
Frank

Interesting. Can you provide a link to the IEEE paper you mention.

Perhaps in the interim, considering a 21 cm line time datum, or whatever you propose. Can you answer this;

Consider an emitted signal or sequence using this period emitted. Perhaps even just the light based time signals from a clock.

If this sequence then came across the refractive plane of a dielectric medium (body) of say n = 1.4, but in motion towards the source (i.e. in a different inertial frame) at v, would the apparent 'wavelength' or period of the signal be Doppler shifted to an observer at rest with the new medium?

And at what velocity would it propagate wrt that observer within the new frame / medium? (I'm not concerned about higher orders/gamma)

I hope those answers will help me achieve a fuller understanding of your proposition.

Many Thanks

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank H Makinson replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 19:09 GMT
Peter,

IEEE, since Jan 2011, prevents authors from posting the published version. You can download the postprint from the following URL:

Methodology Postprint

If you know an IEEE member, or are associated with an institution that has IEEE membership, the paper can be accessed using the following URL:

IEEE Methodology

The published IEEE version has a image of Euclid on the title page with a rather unique alteration, it has two right triangles on Euclid's tablet that are labeled in English.

Author Frank H Makinson replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 22:54 GMT
Peter,

The basis of the concept in the methodology does not involve an index of refraction different than 1, thus there is no need to consider Doppler or a value for the velocity of electromagnetic waves other than the one derived by the mathematical process. The precision of the results are limited only by the limitations of our computation capability.

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 20:45 GMT
Dear Frank Makinson,

Of course the function of the establishment is to suppress ideas outside the paradigm (with both good and bad results). FQXi is probably the only serious effort to actually deal with this.

I enjoyed your quotes, such as Keynes', and also your observation concerning the definition of the meter to the effect that: "the location of the vacuum is never specified." Interesting.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank H Makinson replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 23:40 GMT
Edwin,

The editors-in-chief and peer reviewers are just doing their jobs by filtering out anything that isn't generally accepted. One of the problems about assumptions is that there isn't an official list stating that something is an assumption. It was an assumption that the observed crystallography patterns were "settled science", even though just one type of observation method was being used to identify them. It was assumed that x-ray diffraction methods would reveal all crystallography patterns.

How many people do you know that are aware of the vacuum of space assumption, specifically, how it is defined? It is absurd to me that the vacuum of space everywhere is stated to have exactly the same characteristics of a vacuum measured on the Earth's surface someplace. I was an undergraduate at the Univ of Iowa when Van Allen was building his Explorer instrument packages. I had some interface with his laboratory. I saw a group of individuals clustered around a work bench one evening, where the tech, a fellow student, was wrapping a thick lead sheet around a Geiger counter. The vacuum of space became less empty after the successful Explorer III mission; space had to be measured to identify what was there.

The concept in my IEEE paper is not in the textbooks, but it was presented with absolute simplicity using a well established physical law and mathematical processes, plus I wrote the paper to emphasize that my EE background was responsible for identifying the wavelength/frequency geometric relationship. It would have been better to have gotten my paper published in a traditional physics journal, as it is more about physical law than anything else, but I was unsuccessful in getting any physics or mathematical publication to accept it.

I found the Tegmark quote in Georgina's essay interesting relative to the Eddington quote in my IEEE paper. The concepts in my IEEE paper actually support his contention of a mathematical universe. I have attempted to contact him, but I am sure I am not on his email white list.

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 00:31 GMT
Hi Frank,

That's why I found your vacuum remark so interesting. It's an unspoken assumption that is also unquestioned until you point it out!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 17:44 GMT
Frank,

An interesting essay.

"Even though it is now possible to mutually define the size of the base units of measure mathematically,it doesn’t mean the core scientific disciplines that should be using them will adopt the new units voluntarily."

How do you think new units could be established and what would prompt them to change?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank H Makinson wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT
James,

One of my mentors, a retired professor of electrical engineer, former editor of one of the IEEE journals, and active reviewer of IEEE article submissions up to three months preceding his death (Jan 2011), told me what had to happen first, and I quote, "To get recognition by engineers-physicists-mathematicians, your paper has to be referred to by a "Big Shot" in one of the papers he/she writes."

I have sent emails to individuals that I thought had significant influence in theoretical and mathematical physics, such as Lee Smolin, John Baez and others, hoping they would read my email and access the paper. This has not happened.

Garrett Lisi visited conferences where the significant players congregated and discussed his E8 theory with specific individuals, plus he could present his theory in the language that they understood.

Until one of the significant players learns that there is a mathematical method to define base units of measure, nothing will happen. I would have liked to have made the following statement in my paper:

"Every intelligent species in the universe, after identifying the methodology to define the base units of measure, created a set of scientific units of measure based upon the concepts in the methodology."

I knew I couldn't get such a statement through peer review.

Everyone assumes that SI units are an acceptable way to define a set of units. Even though the CCU recommends that all base units be defined in terms of physical constants, they know of no other way to define the core base units, a length and unit of time, that is, define the size of a length, and use the Earth second as the basis for the size of a "duration of time."

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 10:39 GMT
Frank

It's solved! The other media frame causes the perturbations and consequential absorption. If I turn the bubbles off and just have the water jet's on, I can read the papers without them going soggy. I then turn the bubbles back on while contemplating (sometimes mid paper). It seems understanding hot tubs is a prerequisite for assimilating all the excellent viewpoints here.

Have you thought about how we might measure the spin of a soliton? I've proposed that when we give it 4 dimensions we find at least 3 main axis of spin plus handedness. But it needs a translating complex soliton taper structure not just a cylinder. I would not know how to start with the maths for that! Is computability the problem?

Perhaps I should think it over in the hot tub.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank H Makinson replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:11 GMT
Peter,

I had a hot tub a decade ago, and when the air injector was on the airborne moisture could dilute a good Cabernet.

The medium in which a soliton is permitted to propagate will determine the structure of the waveform that can propagate as a soliton. You are making an assumption that a soliton has spin. I will have to dig up the references I put in my first Gravity Research Foundation paper, they give a hint to the necessary attributes of an electromagnetic wave that can propagate as a soliton.

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 00:01 GMT
Frank

I like numerological games

conclusion from them is my essay.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1294

report post as inappropriate

ugo Fabbri wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 09:21 GMT
The research method that you expound (correlation between numerical constants and physical constants) is perfectly functional regarding the holistic theory (see The Origin of Quarks, From the Number Alpha to the Materiality of the Universe) and so I can only wish your theory every success, even if it seems rather difficult to overcome old prejudices that hinder the development of science. Gabriele D'Annunzio (the Italian poet and hero of the First World War) always urged others to "dare the undareable" (Memento audere sempre: Always remember to dare).

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 13:40 GMT
Mark

We belong the same confession http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagore

See http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0012

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0014

fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

George wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 20:42 GMT
To Frank

1) The terminology, that we using, is imperfect actually. What we can do? We are going from known to unknown areas (exactly, which we believe as known to us). Thus, we trying bringing with us our usual old concepts, and to use these somewhat on new subjects, whereas, it is necessary to establish and use new concepts, which are a big technical problem first. Thus, it is natural some disagreements on this matter. For example, there isn not common and strong definition on =elementary particle= even, but we using it, hoping that everybody will understood it in right meaning! (i.e. as we understood it!)

2) You says, =the standing wave is a stationary= I call it =pseudo static=. The essence easy to see just from animation of wave interference (I hope you will find it in I-net. The field oscillated in the same place, without propagation. It is the localized particle or elm particle, which has its components - main and secondary maximums, i.e. mass & charges)

3) You would like to involve me in gravity problem, Thank you; it is very interesting theme for me. Now I can say only that I am sharing your approach about electromagnetic nature of gravity, hoping I can complete mine work on the subject and publish it.

report post as inappropriate

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 07:40 GMT
Hi Frank,

I enjoyed your essay and your arguments. Yes, sadly, the scientific paradigm is carved into granite.  The only way to change a paradigm is to present irrefutable evidence that contradicts it, or so we thought...

With today's communication freedom scientific change can be swifter than traditionally experienced. What happened in politics can happen in science.

The popular wind can blow the house of cards away, if and only if it carries the correct arguments.

Regards

Anton @  (  /topic/1458  )

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 01:55 GMT
Dear Uncle Frank

"An assumption can stifle scientific inquiry if it is allowed to become a protected paradigm, and thus, unchallengeable."

That is the reason make mistakes.

A review can not be more precise!

Hopefully Uncle struggling to remove for that nonsense.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 22:17 GMT
Frank,

For this contest, I decided to go through and comment on essays of interest and see what responses I got to my own essay. There are over 250 entries, so I narrowed down my evaluations. For only those who responded, I decided to reread and provide my evaluations before time expired, not making it a popularity contest but keeping in mind that I entered for an exchange of interesting ideas, whether I agree or not. Some concepts are superior and more persuasively supported.

I think yours comes under that guideline.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:12 GMT
Hello Frank. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:25 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate