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 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

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
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

peter wamai wanjohi: on 10/8/12 at 10:39am UTC, wrote Thanks for your remarks.Having read your essay, i think our ideas converge...

peter wamai wajohi: on 10/6/12 at 19:03pm UTC, wrote Very true. It is apparent the community ratings here are a function of the...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:04am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Georgina Parry: on 10/2/12 at 22:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter Wamai Wanjohi, I wanted to let you know that I have taken a...

peter wanjohi: on 8/30/12 at 8:30am UTC, wrote Ted Erikson: Thanks for encouragement.However,because energy=mass*C your...

Ted Erikson: on 8/29/12 at 14:59pm UTC, wrote Peter: A strange, but interesting approach to sphericity. I strongly feel...

peter wanjohi: on 8/28/12 at 15:16pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract The spherical model of the earth is 3 dimensional...


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

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.

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.

May 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Revising the Topology of the Earth by Peter Wamai Wanjohi [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author peter wamai wanjohi wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 15:16 GMT
Essay Abstract

The spherical model of the earth is 3 dimensional despite general relativity’s addition of the fourth dimension (time) and experimental evidence that extra dimensions from other dimensional fields e.g. quantum space and scalar fields impacts on it s topology. The paper therefore wishes to dispel the assumption that the earth or other heavenly body is spherical. It shows that, whereas the surface area, volume, density and mass remain as established, the ultimate shape is actually the result of cumulative flat hyper-planes with tangent vectors extending to infinity. This resolves various physical contradictions relating to a spherical earth. It also supports the theoretical frameworks for existence of extra-dimensional quantum fields just below matter, throughout empty (vacuum space) and outside of space-time. This operational area for quantum waves and universal inflation is not amenable to physical measurement or exploration because its infinite number of singular dimensions ,extents and directions means the dimensions intersect everywhere with no distance between one intersect(field) and another. Thus away from the space-time continuum where speeding matter is superimposed on a finite number of dimensions, there is no space or time. Quantum particles propagate as waves in the scalar field below the universal space-time, creating individual space –time continuums with length: λ. By the same logic, the universal space time continuum is a wave with uneven λ= diameter or longitudinal length of the earth, or other heavenly body. By the principle of equivalence, quantum waves and universal inflation generate electromagnetism and quantum- gravity respectively.

Author Bio

Wanjohi, P.W. did advanced level physics but is a health professional specializing in community health and development .Works with the government and development partners. As a freelance physicist, he is a published researcher. His wish is top see a public well knowledgeable of their physical, biological and chemical environments.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 14:59 GMT

A strange, but interesting approach to sphericity. I strongly feel that "space" must first be defined independently as to what we are referring to. The tetrahedron is the simplest extreme while the sphere is the opposite. Cojoining these, with the former as "energy" and the latter as "mass" unveils a model for simultaneous growth as detailed in my end notes.

Perhaps you may look at it?

Point of essay (vote high!, thanks) is based on

(1) Light "energy" seeks surface area of mass that mediates charge motions while

(2) Gravity is a content of mass phenomena that seeks time to exist by growth.

To Seek Unknown Shores

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author peter wamai wanjohi replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 08:30 GMT
Ted Erikson:

Thanks for encouragement.However,because energy=mass*C your position and mine are not different.I hope you agree that something needs to be done about the 3.D sphere model of earth because reality as we know it now is not 3-D!

I'd read your essay before writing mine. It is very informative .

Bookmark and Share

Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 22:39 GMT
Dear Peter Wamai Wanjohi,

I wanted to let you know that I have taken a look at your essay but have not yet read it all thoroughly. You are considering an interesting conundrum about the dimensions that the Earth actually occupies. The problems you identify with a spherical Earth I must admit I have not previously considered. My visualisation of your idea of fish swimming in a straight line end exiting the ocean did amuse me, though you are making a serious point. I really like that you have included lots of diagrams to illustrate your arguments. I notice in your reply to Ted you mention reality. I have been working on an explanatory framework that allows the space-time mathematics to co-exists with a higher dimensional quantum physics model without contradiction. There is a high res. version of diagram 1. in my essay discussion thread. Would be great if you get the opportunity to take a look. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

peter wamai wanjohi replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 10:39 GMT
Thanks for your remarks.Having read your essay, i think our ideas converge in some critical areas.What i learn from your essay is the idea of external and internal reality (objective and subjective objects). Though it is known that photons carry information about objects across the universe, and that the said information represent the real objects and is not objective by itself,you state that even the things we can touch or eat are themselves not real but represent another reality.I think QM is of the same opinion (that reality is a collapse of probability waves upon being observed).

It is also ties with your other expression that reality is data spread over the surface of spherical shells that get larger with each iteration/moment of universal inflation.I cannot agree more because in my own thinking space-time continuum is a concentric shell that contains all there is.GR then informs us that the space -time is warped all over by material objects.In this way,smaller objects gravitates downwards towards bigger ones along the curvatures.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:04 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
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:
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

peter wamai wajohi replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 19:03 GMT
Very true. It is apparent the community ratings here are a function of the number of people who rate an essay and the points they give.This is too subjective or arbitrary.What to do,is there a more scientific way? Hope it is not the only criteria used by the reviewing panel to judge entries.

Am looking at your entry hoping to give my most objective rating (feedback) .All the best.

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.