Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

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


Previous Contests

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

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.
read/discusswinners

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

read/discusswinners

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
read/discusswinners

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

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
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Donatello Dolce: on 10/4/12 at 21:42pm UTC, wrote Hi Gary, nice essay, I'll give you a high rate. Please see my essay about...

Steve Dufourny Jedi: on 10/4/12 at 10:09am UTC, wrote The honesty and the universal love are the only things which rests to us in...

Gary Simpson: on 10/4/12 at 10:01am UTC, wrote I am assuming that this is an informational post to all contestants? Yes,...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 9:21am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Gary Simpson: on 10/4/12 at 1:30am UTC, wrote Geoff, Thanks for taking the time to read and consider my essay ... ...

Gary Simpson: on 10/4/12 at 1:22am UTC, wrote Declan, Thanks for taking a look. I read and rated yours early on although...

Geoffrey Haselhurst: on 10/3/12 at 10:08am UTC, wrote Further thought; "time should be held as a constant, a human reference to...

Geoffrey Haselhurst: on 10/3/12 at 10:04am UTC, wrote Hi Gary, It is a nicely written essay, good on you! Question for you. I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Wave Equation and Spherical Time by Gary D. Simpson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT
Essay Abstract

The classical wave equation is solved using spherical time and space. Both scalar and vector solutions are presented. It is shown that singularities are avoided by this formulation. It is also shown that inertia may result from our perception of time as linear.

Author Bio

The author has BS and MS degrees in Chemical Engineering from Texas A&M University and has worked in the chemical industies for ~25 years. He has had an intense interest in the wave equation for several years.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 01:08 GMT
Dear Gary Simpson,

I'm not sure that I understand your essay (actually, I'm pretty sure that I do not!) but I do find it original and imaginative, and would not have thought to derive your equation (4). I did something similar a year ago when I derived a 1/r solution to an equation and then realized that I could also derive a 1/t solution. In that case the solution had only one sign, and I took this as possibly representing uni-directional time. I need to go back and rethink that.

Anyway, the point is that I mathematically understand your equations but I just haven't succeeded in getting the notion of "spherical time" into my noggin. Similarly, equation (7.2) is mathematically understandable to me, but the concept fails to penetrate my mind. Finally, I missed the transition to your conclusion about the ether.

There have been cases in the past, such as Peter Jackson's essay last year, where I failed to grasp what was going on in the first reading, but understood it in the second. I'll try to come back to this one.

Thanks for introducing a novel approach,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 11:56 GMT
Dear Dr Klingman,

Thank you for taking the time to read my essay and consider it. I will be the first to admit that I have not wrapped my mind around the concept and perhaps never will. Fortunately, I can do the math irrespective of whether or not I understand the concept.

My motivation for writing the essay was the apparent fact that the concept eliminates the infinities that are normally associated with t=0 and r=0. And it makes space and time symmetrical. Also, it makes it very easy to get to the 1/r^2 needed for Newton's gravity or electrostatics. It seems to me that such a radical idea can only be introduced by a non-professional since a professional would risk losing credibility with such an idea, but for me it is a no-lose situation with some possible upside. If a professional can glean an idea from this then it will have been worth the effort.

Equations 7.2 and 7.3 are the most troubling of the work I think. If you look at Figure 1 at the end of the text, it is obvious that along the r and t axes there is a lot of wave action but towards the middle there is almost none. The equations must represent something. For equation 7.3 I can almost envision how it might represent matter. That meant that equation 7.2 must represent energy but then what is the meaning of a wave that extends in time but not space? That is what brought me to the idea of a moving wave media expanding at c. Since I had already gone down the rabbit hole with Alice, it seemed that one more crazy idea would not hurt.

Although I do not think that I completely get the idea, I do think that it has a few implications. It seems to imply that time for a particle has only one direction. It also seems to imply that mass is a preferential frame of reference. This is contrary to Special Relativity but I understand that Lorentz has a version of relativity that permits this concept. Perhaps there are situations where the two theories of relativity make different predictions? If so, spherical time would be more likely to be consistent with Lorentz.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 19:24 GMT
Hi Gary,

You say, "It seems to me that such a radical idea can only be introduced by a non-professional since a professional would risk losing credibility with such an idea, but for me it is a no-lose situation with some possible upside. If a professional can glean an idea from this then it will have been worth the effort."

That is an excellent philosophy, and one of the beauties of FQXi is that it enables such exchanges of ideas.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 10:39 GMT
I have posted a revised copy of the text including appendices to viXra.org in the quantum physics category.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 19:12 GMT
Gary,

I won't even pretend that I follow your equations, but certainly the concept is interesting and not wedded to the established.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 22:18 GMT
Dear James Hoover,

Thanks for taking a look at my work. Unconventional thinking is something we share.

My apologies regarding the math. It's not really as bad as it looks. Since it is such an odd-ball idea, I felt obliged to develop it as far as possible. Also, it was only through the math that the easy connection to Newton becomes obvious.

The reason that I asked you about non-reactive forces previously is that the vector equations that result produce a spinning corkscrew type of function that resembles polarized light. If it were possible to have that "dig into something" then it might be possible to produce a thrust. I am reminded that many UFO incidents involve intensely bright light. I will simply say that I am a skeptic but I am open to persuation by evidence or better yet by physics.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 09:20 GMT
Gary,

I find that engineers have a refreshing no-nonesense approach to certain areas of physics. I could not follow all the mathematical arguments, but my gut feeling is that I would rather stick to linear time if at all. I say that because in my Beautiful Universe theory I assume an absolute universal State that evolves one click at a time. In effect Time is not necessary to understand the local, causal changes in the State of this Universal lattice of dielectric nodes, each with its own potential and orientation. Anyway perhaps a little of the home brew you spoke about might make me change my mind for a time!

You need to define "beta" in Eq. 3 etc. and why not type (h_bar) for the missing glyph in a font? If need be you can publish your appendices and papers at at viXra.org a less snobbish archive than ArXiv which insists on academic status before accepting papers. You say you googled spherical time and got millions of hits - that gets every reference to spherical and to time on the same web page, but if you put the words in parenthesis you get 'only' 27,000 for the words in congruence.

Thank you for reminding me of the work of Milo Wolff.

Best wishes

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 13:30 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for taking the time to read and consider my essay. A universe without time? Hmmm, that is a thought. In many ways I simply regard time as a variable used to create parametric equations. It let's us relate A to B even if we do not understand what A and B are.

Homebrew ... one of my favorite subjects:-) I'll admit that it improves my thinking - at least up to a point.

The beta that I mention is needed when solving the spatial part of the problem. Euler's Equation is actually a quaternion that performs a rotation about the axis included in the complex exponential. Therefore, if someone uses exp(i*alpha*r), they are actually saying that alpha*r is an angle. So I needed a term that would convert between distance and radians. I have done some other work that indicates that beta might be v/c. The definition that I used when I incorporated beta into the wave equation was theta = beta*r where theta was the angle of the rotation.

The work of Milo Wolff focuses on extended spacial structures. He solved the spherical scalar wave equation roughly 25 years ago. He has several websites and there is a user's group on yahoo that discusses the work.

Don Hotson is another good thinker in my opinion. He makes an excellent argument in favor of an aether. He also argues for a universal clock that advances one tick at a time ... much like what you propose.

Thanks for the reminder regarding search options ... the irony is that there are so few references to spherical time that now my paper is near the top of the rankings. Also, I will check out the archive site that you reference. The downside is that anything that I put there will not have had a peer review.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 03:12 GMT
Hmmmm, I must say that I am at a loss for words. I hope you are feeling better soon.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 22:39 GMT
I think I am understanding you now ... you have had an idea similar to spherical time and you believe that I stole it from you. Is this correct? I think all of space is rotating and that rotation can be perceived as forces or particles depending upon the situation. I arrived at the idea by substituting some quaternion vector rotations into the wave equation. That allowed me to produce a vector solution to the wave equation a produce a mechanism to account for action at a distance provided there is an actual physical wave media.

Perhaps you are the first ... I do not know. I've been studying and working with the wave equation and its applications for almost two years. But I only had the idea for spherical time a few months ago. I expected to get a time dependent solution that included inertia. Instead, all I got was a steady state solution that was rotating about the i axis. This made me realize that I needed a 1/t term as part of the solution. That made me realize that spherical time would satisfy that requirement. And THAT gave me a solution which contains inertia.

By the way, Milo Wolff solved the spatial aspect of the problem ~25 years ago. I reference him in my essay.

My primary reasons for submitting the essay are equations 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. The integral of sinx/x also provides a method for someone more skilled in mathematics to provide an independent confirmation or rejection of the idea.

Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 03:33 GMT
FQXI and contest participants-- Is thought/physical theory fundamentally improved in conjunction with what is unnatural experience? Is television ultimate reality to you physicists? The way you all are generally going, maybe you think that the answer is yes. You wonder why modern physics is generally lost. Think.

Gary -- Fundamentally, inertia involves balanced attraction and repulsion.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 03:59 GMT
YES! Inertia is a balance of attraction and repulsion ... very correct in my opinion. Any non-accelerating frame of reference is in an equilibria. Any movement away from that equilibria is resisted and a new equilibria is established. It might even be purely electrostatics. The real question to me is what is being balanced. I am thinking that inertia is an interaction between a particle and the aether. If there is a wave equation then something must wave.

By the way ... does anyone understand what Steve Dufourny wrote above?

Regarding television and reality ... surely you jest ... the only thing real about television is the electromagnetic waves. I don't even watch it ... and I am no physicist ... much too unconventional.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 22:43 GMT
Oops ... excuse my manners. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my essay.

g

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 05:38 GMT
Gary,

Please excuse the delay to respond to your clarifications of 14 July. I thank you for the explanations and the references you provided. Hope your experience on fqxi is positive and that will encourage you to continue your researches and inspiration for developing them. There are a some incomprehensible posts and feel with you about some of them, but after all it is an open forum and nothing much can be done about it!

With best wishes,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Karoly Kehrer wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 23:42 GMT
Dear Gary

Engineers like you have a refreshing no-nonesense approach to physics.What you have written helps me thinking about the unsolved problems of Physics. Believe me they are many.

Thanks Karoly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 23:53 GMT
Karoly,

Thanks for taking a look. I was glad you were able to get your paper submitted in time. Milo's ideas are getting a little more exposure thanks to yourself and Declan. It will be a long and difficult journey but we must travel it.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:59 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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny Jedi wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 23:44 GMT
Hello Mr Simpson, How are you , fine I hope in this day.:)

The spherical waves are relevant that said.

Have you already thought about the gravitational waves ?

ps the spherical time is relevant. Have you already insert the duration correlated with rotations.This duration is irreversible but variable. So it is relevant considering the universal times in fact. The rotations of spheres imply the duration,the uniqueness implies that each uniqueness serie can decrease the internal clocks. It is fascinating for the duration of a serie of uniqueness inside the universal duration. Tjis serie can drecrease its internal clocks . It is relevant for the checking of space between two cosmological spheres. It permits to decrease so the time of travel. Furthermore a second principle can be inserted, this is the fact that we can change mass in light, considering the main central spheres, bosonic and fermionic of course and their codes correlated with volumes.So it permits to travel at c and furthermore we decrease the internal clocks. It is relevant it seems to me. It permits to go very far inside our universal sphere and in a short times.Because the duration is proportional with rotating spheres.

This point of vue implies a paradox about mass and its quantization.That's why my equations inserting the SPHERICAL VOLUMES are essential for the stability of this mass. The gravitation can be checked indeed.:) It is fascinating in fact all this natural sciences .

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:17 GMT
Dear Gary,

Hello. 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.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 00:54 GMT
Gary,

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.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 04:23 GMT
Dear Gary,

You present an interesting idea. Quite different from my own thoughts about fundamental physics, but there's no need to limit oneself to a single approach.

I have seen something involving an idea that is at least superficially similar, and thought you might be interested. Here's the URL:

http://my.ilstu.edu/~lmiones/Q++NSM.pdf

I don't necessarily endorse the ideas he presents (there are very many, presented in a brainstorming sort of way), but I think they are interesting.

Also, you say, "There are numerous derivations presented in the Appendices associated with this text. Space limitations preclude their inclusion. The author will gladly provide same upon request."

Do you mind sending these to me? My email address is bdribus@math.lsu.edu.

Thanks for the interesting read, and good luck in the contest. Take care,

Ben Dribus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 16:24 GMT
Thanks for taking the time to read and consider my essay.

I've sent you a copy of the work with Appendices ... I hope I have not made any errors:-) I also use viXra.org. I have another paper posted there and have a 3'rd almost ready.

Thanks for the link. Some of that guy's ideas are very similar to my own. I thought I was the only person crazy enough to think of motion as continuos teleportation. But if you believe in an aether then motion of an object can be viewed as a continuos process of destruction and reconstruction in the direction of movement since the needed raw material is ever-present. I'm glad I won't be alone in the loony bin:-) It will take some time for me to study that work though since it is 133 pages long.

Let me know if you have further questions or comments.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 19:41 GMT
Dear Gary,

Thanks... I got what you sent, and sent you back some further preliminary remarks. Regarding Ionescu, I never even came close to absorbing all the ideas in that paper. But there is a lot of interesting material there. Take care,

Ben

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Declan Traill wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 09:34 GMT
Hi Gary,

I am already somewhat familiar with your work & have given you a high Community rating. Good luck in the contest...

Best Regards,

Declan Traill

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 01:22 GMT
Declan,

Thanks for taking a look. I read and rated yours early on although I did not make any comments.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Geoffrey Haselhurst wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 10:04 GMT
Hi Gary,

It is a nicely written essay, good on you!

Question for you.

I assume you have a constant velocity for light, and time varies in direction around a sphere. Would you get the same result if you kept time constant and had velocity of light around the sphere changing, i.e. the value ct would still be the same. I think the latter is correct as I take 'time' to be caused by wave motion (time is a human construct) and that time should be held as a constant, a human reference to measure the change in wave velocity.

I also made some comments on Declan Traill's essay and would appreciate your thoughts on them too.

Cheers,

Geoff

PS - When do i get some of the homebrew, I need it!!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Geoffrey Haselhurst replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 10:08 GMT
Further thought;

"time should be held as a constant, a human reference to measure the change in wave velocity."

This is further confused because I think wave velocity and wavelength (dimension) both must change, the frequency (time) of the matter waves remains constant. So we cannot measure the change in the light / matter wave velocity and wavelength - they are measured the same even though they change.

Geoff

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1548

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 01:30 GMT
Geoff,

Thanks for taking the time to read and consider my essay ...

HomeBrew ... a favorite research project of mine:-) Beer is very easy to make and hard to make wrong. The little yeasties do all the work. Just two words sum it up ... clean and sterile ... get that right and the beer is great.

I am thinking that the ct product is what is important rather than either of the individual values. I am also thinking that SR will fall out very easily from the concept but I have not yet confirmed this by working through the needed derivations.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:21 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
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary Simpson replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:01 GMT
I am assuming that this is an informational post to all contestants?

Yes, I already understood the rating process.

No, I do not think the hidden factors associated with it should be changed. If they were changed, people would manipulate the ratings more then they do now. The best way to make it work is to simply give an honest assessment of what you think someone's essay should be rated.

By the way, I don't really care about the ratings ... I simply want for an idea to be considered.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny Jedi replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:09 GMT
The honesty and the universal love are the only things which rests to us in fact. The kindness as a torch of evidence. The sincere heart is so important.

To be or not to be, that is the question after all !!!

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Donatello Dolce wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 21:42 GMT
Hi Gary,

nice essay, I'll give you a high rate. Please see my essay about cyclic time, I think you will find it intresring.

Elementary Time Cycles

redards,

Donatello

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.