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 - April 24, 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

Curt Youngs: on 10/5/12 at 10:03am UTC, wrote I leave you with this thought, James: From my point of view, the inertia...

Ke Xiao: on 10/5/12 at 4:50am UTC, wrote Dear Robt Curtis Youngs, Very interesting to see your essay. I wish you...

Anonymous: on 10/5/12 at 4:28am UTC, wrote Larue: Albert said that, as a child, he tried to imagine what it would be...

Curt Youngs: on 10/4/12 at 12:01pm UTC, wrote Sergey Fedosin, I certainly agree with you on this point. I suppose some...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:27am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Larue: on 10/3/12 at 15:03pm UTC, wrote I have always been curious about the fantastic sounding attributes...

Larue: on 10/1/12 at 19:28pm UTC, wrote Congratulations, I just figured out what you are saying. Your comment at...

Curt Youngs: on 10/1/12 at 12:16pm UTC, wrote I can't get every detail just right! I meant to link to this: Questioning...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Mr Hosein, the MWI of Everett is a philosophical different..." in Good Vibrations

Steve Dufourny: "Hello John and Dr Chiang, Dr Chiang , I have tried to find you on..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Nicholas hosein: "Reality is a many-worlds Quantum level event." in Good Vibrations

Kwan Chiang: "Hi John and Steve, When the majority talk about Maxwell equations, it is..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Monika Součková: "What do you feel the most exciting or effective learning environment would..." in Quantum Machine Learning...

Jim Snowdon: "Had we evolved on a swiftly rotating planet like the Earth, our..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "If the rotational motion of the moon is 370km per hour, and the rotational..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Lorraine Ford: "Steve, I would like to point out that physics says that the world and..." in How does an Isolated...

RECENT ARTICLES

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

FQXi FORUM
January 18, 2022

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: A Logical Analysis of Albert Einstein's Mirror-Light-Clock Gedankin by Robt Curtis Youngs [refresh]

Author Robt Curtis Youngs wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 11:57 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract: “No matter how long one has lived with the results of special relativity, there is something very counter intuitive about it.” . “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.”1 The purpose of this article is to focus upon that seemingly illogical state of affairs. Einstein used the “Gedankin,” or “thought experiment,” to illustrate what he thought happens during the propagation of light. One must determine where the pulse is in relation to the source. The determination requires detectors, otherwise nothing can be determined. Albert was not too diligent in determining where the light pulse actually might be. If these early theorists had noticed that the speed of light, at 300 million meters a second, is better stated as being about a foot per nanosecond; then the immensity of distance vs time becomes trivial. A given distance in feet then becomes the same number of nanoseconds in time. The place in space where a pulse of light is detected with at rest with the source detectors is straight forward, but counter intuitive for moving frame detectors; when the distances between these detectors are compared in a coordinate system of their own. This essay will hopefully shed some light on the subject.

Author Bio

Author's Bio: I have a Bachelor of Science Degree from Pacific College, Fresno, California. (Now Fresno Pacific University) I have years of independent study on this subject; and spent many countless hours in discussions on Internet forums and informal queries with knowledgeable individuals over the years. I wish to be judged upon what I feel are the cogent ideas presented here; and not whether I am qualified to present them.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 17:12 GMT
Dear Curtis,

I appreciate your concerns with Relativity and I liked the detailed analysis presented in your essay. But finally, do you conclude that the two founding postulates of Relativity are wrong?

All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach.

Kindly read my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate
Larue replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 19:28 GMT
Congratulations, I just figured out what you are saying. Your comment at Rafael Castel's essay clicked in my mind to connect that the passage of time is revealed by the length of his light rays. What time it is in the moving reference frame has no bearing on where the moving frame detectors are placed in that frame, as each one coincides with a respective detector in the what you call the source reference frame! With this insight, I see no reason for Einstein's need to have a fourth axis for time. Do I have this right?

report post as inappropriate

Larue replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 15:03 GMT
I have always been curious about the fantastic sounding attributes scientists, and astronomers claim are seemingly caused by relativistic motion. A friend sent me the link to your essay, and I read it several times. Then I decided to try to make my own charts following your directions. I used tracing paper for the moving reference frame. I had trouble at first making sure that I moved the paper in a straight line in relation to the original drawing, but when I finished, my charts look just like yours. In the process of doing the drawings, I began really getting it.

I have since done some reference frames moving diagonally to the original source-mirror reference frame, and one moving at c longitudinally. Very interesting results!

Thanks

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 04:28 GMT
Larue:

Albert said that, as a child, he tried to imagine what it would be like to ride a ray of light at the speed of light. Your new diagram, moving at c longitudinally, demonstrates the situation (after the first bounce): Initially, detectors approaching the ray experience Doppler blue shift, which is just the momentum of the detectors vs the oncoming wave fronts. However, moving with the receding light ray Doppler shifts all the momentum (energy) from the beam. Only one detector is needed to collect the pulses after the first bounce, since the detector is traveling with the pulse; Einstein would not see anything of the light wave since he would be at rest with it. On the second bounce the pulses reappear as in the initial emission to the first mirror. Can you see that from your diagram?

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 17:16 GMT
Robert,

I really wondered where the term "photon" came from, "Albert. Einstein invented the idea of the photon." (First page, last sentence)

I am curious if you were asked to alter your essay to conform to Chicago Style references? I was asked to modify my references even though I had submitted my references to the IEEE Authors Reference Checker, and they passed, before I submitted my essay, 1294.

I note that many essays do not adhere to the Chicago Style reference notation.

report post as inappropriate

Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 23:20 GMT
Curt;

I only skimmed it so far, but am full of joy that you took the effort to formally write your theory. It looks very well done. I will study it, expect to gain much, and will comment later. Thanks very much for including me in your resource list.

Three Cheers to you!

Eric

report post as inappropriate
Curt replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 08:19 GMT
That resource list should be very long, but the length of the essay prevented inclusion of everyone. Your experiments confirm my understanding that light has the nature of waves. If your experiments were to be replicated by a university or such, millions of dollars would undoubtedly be spent! True genius there, my friend.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 04:21 GMT
Hi Robt,

I first just noticed you writing Gedankin instead of Gedanken. Then I was bewildered by the 'Voight-Einstein “Galilean Transform” diagram' not just because you also misspelled Voigt. When Einstein suggested to explain the photoelectric effect by photons, he at best reinvented Newton's corpuscular theory of light, etc. I am certainly not the first one to tell you such striking imperfections in what you are uttering.

You might check to what extent your "cogent ideas" agree with what I found out. I got the opportunity to use English when I was already fifty years old. That's why I had to look into my dictionary what cogent means: almost the same as convincing. Admittedly, your final questions are not yet convincing to me.

May I tell you that length contraction and time dilution were not fabricated by Einstein himself but by FitzGerald, Lorentz and others who aimed to rescue the idea of an aether after the experiment by Michelson and Morley (MMX) seemed to disprove it. Some authors argue that the MMX did not disprove the aether. I maintain that Fig. 5 of my essay for the first time cogently explains why.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate
Curt replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 07:55 GMT
It looks to me as if you can have Voigt either way. See Wikipedia: Voigt.

Your criticism: "When Einstein suggested to explain the photoelectric effect by photons, he at best reinvented Newton's corpuscular theory of light, etc" is just what I said in your own words. Albert named them "photons." I get the sense that you are quite adversarial. Imperfections? Gnats!

I have found...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Curt replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 08:10 GMT
You state: "Then I was bewildered by the 'Voight-Einstein 'Galilean Transform' diagram . . ."

So am I! The diagram is not "mine." It is a representative example of how consensus Physicists draw the "Galilean Transform!" Everyone seems confused as to where and to which reference frame the point "p" is to be associated. In fact at Wiki, they leave the point entirely out of the diagram! This is the whole idea as to why I incorporated it in the essay.

Incidentally, they are transforming the emitter, rather than the finite traveling radiation. The emitter must really be elastic to be both moving and at rest with the at rest coordinate system!

Thanks, your comment helps make my point.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 08:53 GMT
Curt,

"Where is your evidence that the aether ... ?" My explanation of the experiment by Feist seems to be the only reasonable. Calling Feist a crank, as did Bruhn, is pointless. The same reasoning which I used in case of Feist's experiment turns out correct for electromagnetic waves too while Potier's calculation was based on wrong assumptions. This concerns a pillar of modern physics.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Evans wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 07:41 GMT
Curt,

We have spent a full century now, arguing over the observations given to us by an imaginary space traveler, who moves at relativist speeds, and much like a crooked politician running for re-election, will tell you virtually any far-fetched tale - truthful or not; but most often not.

Personally, I've become increasingly skeptical of all "hypothetical observations" made by imaginary observers. In his book, Science at the Crossroads, Herbert Dingle wrote the following:

"All science is based on observation, and whatever we say about the world studied in science must justify itself ultimately in terms of what we actually observe, not of what we infer that hypothetical observers would experience in circumstances impossible yet to attain. Now effectively, in all matters with which special relativity is concerned, there is only one observer - a terrestrial one - for the relative motions possible to terrestrial observers are so small as to be negligible in this connection. Hence the theory must be wholly expressible in terms of the experiences of that one observer alone."

If nothing else your essay and theory restores some much needed sanity to the topic of time dilation and twins that age at different rates. It's a good essay, and I am delighted to see a new, well thought out theory that is at odds with Einstein's incredulous, outlandish ideas. Well done!

Evans

report post as inappropriate
Curt replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 08:39 GMT
Thank you "Evans" for your favorable comment, and confidence in my efforts. Herbert Dingle is one of my heroes. He did get caught up in Einstein's clocks and latex space assumptions. I had been working on what shape the expanding light sphere, that forms isotropically around the emitter of a light pulse in the primary "at rest with the source" reference frame, becomes in various "moving" reference frames. At some point, I realized that the light pulse can only be detected when it gets to the detector. This realization necessitates multiple detectors in every reference frame, enabling their distances from the origins of their respective frames to be plotted. This is something Dingle had overlooked with his "one observer" idea.

I have constructed how the spherically expanding wave front of the light pulse appears in various moving frames (yes they appear spherical in the moving frames too) but the inspiration for using Einstein's "Light Clock Gedankin" to demonstrate the patterns of detectors approaching and receding from the emitter, while traveling at various speeds and angles of approach, came from "Siggy_G." He insisted that the location of the pulse be determined.

I had visualized the zigzag pattern they take in the transversely moving frame, but was surprised at the pattern in the rectilinearly moving frame. I had expected the "compressed" locations of detectors to be in the approaching the emitter side of the moving frame, and the "expanded" locations to be on the receding side. I have never found mention of the expanded part of the diagram. Why would that be?

report post as inappropriate

Evans replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 02:50 GMT
As your diagrams clearly demonstrate, nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Both sets of detectors (straight and diagonal) are essentially recording the same exact thing. If you turned your diagram into an animation it would show that the diagonal detectors are one-after-another moving into the same location, at the same time, as the stationary detectors. Nothing unusual occurs.

The confusion sets in when we ignore what the detectors are telling us, and try to predict what a moving observer will actually see; the former is actual data, the latter imaginary data.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 19:58 GMT
Many years ago I read a book by Paul Davies titled 'Superforce'. I no longer have it, but, I feel certain that it was the one in which he referred to Herbert Dingle in a disdainful manner. Taking into consideration what Dingle was reported to have said and Davies' book allong with its revelations that 'nothing is unstable' or that we were possibly 'glimpsing' the superforce nonsense, my opinion of Davies dropped hard. My point is that Davies used the same artificially superiorly projected 'rational' attitude of relativists that continues to this day. Relativity theory is not rational. It is theory. It is interpretation. It includes dependence upon invented and empirically unjustifiable properties. An example is space-time.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 22:37 GMT
Dear Robt Curtis Youngs,

I would like to see relativists debate some of the content of your essay. I have not found any use for Einstein's, or his supporter's, visual aids. They are not needed to explain or account for relativity type effects nor for deriving the correct equations necessary for properly modeling those effects. Now, that is my opinion. I think though that your approach has more opportunity to draw serious debate. I hope it happens. Your arguments deserve to be evaluated.

James

report post as inappropriate
Curt replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 08:58 GMT
James,

Thanks for taking the time to reply! I am pleased that you see what I have discovered. Information wants to be free, but everyone deserves credit when they figure out a new idea or view point, eh?

Yes, I have had some discussion with so called "relativists." I think you would agree that I have not denied that speeds, times and distances are relative, it's just that they are not magical. So far, one of the "true Einstein believers" that I engaged, insisted that the only way to find fault with "Einstein's" STR is to use Einstein's reasoning to prove it!

Another one insisted that the well known fallacy of circular reasoning is specifically allowed in Einstein's case! Go figure!

All the best. Have you posted or published anything on this subject?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 17:29 GMT
Curt,

I have four entries in each of the four essay contests here. Each one disputes relativity theory. The beginning of my approach is presented in my current essay. It is completely different. I have been working on this project since 1988. On the Internet since 2001. My website is and has been, since 2001, number one on search engines for 'New Physics Theory'. There is extensive work presented there.

Now back to your essay which is my main point in posting my message. I don't think that your essay belongs so near the bottom without successful refutation by relativists. I don't have a role to play in evaluating relativity's visual aids. As I sort of mentioned here I have found no point to them. For me relativity theory has always been clearly wrong.

I am not discounting relativity type effects. Empirical facts are the beauty. Theory is the beast. I remove theory as much as possible from the equations of physics that would otherwise accurately represent the patterns and meanings offerred to us by empirical evidence. I do not ask that you go along with my view. It is your view that is the subject of your forum and I found it interesting and worthy of serious discussion by relativists. I would like to see how well your view holds up.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 15:37 GMT
Curt,

"Speed cannot be determined without an outside reference. The speed of the "moving reference frame" is measured in the "stationary reference frame." i.e, how far the origin of it has moved from one point to another, in the opposite reference frame. "Moving" and "Stationary" are interchangeable. If one reference frame is "moving" to the left at 1/2c, the opposite frame is moving to the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Andreas Bøe wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 16:30 GMT
Hi Curt.

It seems to me you have confused the two frames of reference in Einsteins gedanken light clock and made it more complicated than it really is. A very strong argument for Einsteins light clock is that it works in real life. For example when an atom clock looses i few microseconds after going around the world in a jet aircraft.

The thing that you have got right is that no one has ever seen a photonic particle. Only the effects of its absorption. That fact seems to be overlooked by many physiscists.

Have ze najs day!

report post as inappropriate
Curt Youngs replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 18:48 GMT
Andreas Bøe,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Now, I need for you to supply the details of which two reference frames I have confused! Since I think I have it right, I have no idea what you think is wrong. Please let me know, otherwise I'll remain ignorant. That is a condition that I wish to avoid!

Curt

report post as inappropriate

Curt Youngs replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 16:40 GMT
Andreas wrote: "It seems to me you have confused the two frames of reference in Einsteins gedanken light clock and made it more complicated than it really is. A very strong argument for Einsteins light clock is that it works in real life. For example when an atom clock looses i few microseconds after going around the world in a jet aircraft.

The thing that you have got right is that no one...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 19:05 GMT
Dear Robt Curtis Youngs,

I think the Mirror-Light-Clock Gedanken experiment is also applicable to describe the quantum entanglement and that is indicative of the String-matter scenario in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 02:17 GMT
Dear Robt Curtis Youngs

Your essay have in common the problem I wonder, though solutions are different.

Very happy to know that.

Kind 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

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT
Curtis

Clear logical and important better view of inertial frames. I can say that with some confidence as it's in almost complete agreement with my own essay. I do give the origin of the word 'photon', agree SR was actually superfluous, and also the following in particular;

"Speed cannot be determined without an outside reference."

"Conventional wisdom never contemplates the approaching light pulse."

"...lost in ambiguity with respect to the speed of light emitted from a source in one reference frame and detectors located in another "moving" frame."

and that the Mirror-Light-Clock Gedanken is nonsense, indeed I also analysed it similarly in last years essay. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Jackson_Essay2020Ba
seText.pdf Einstein's original mirrors were never angled, but I agree the logic of your version, and also consider the quantum mechanisms.

Ref H&K, I again agree, and point out there was also much propaganda by the 'gatekeepers', and the real results were subverted. see Hafele's own quote and my paper; http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers/1920871/
SUBJUGATION_OF_SCEPTICISM_IN_SCIENCE

The implications are quite vast, and I've been a little bemused how few people can grasp the kinetic logic. Your position is ridiculously low and a top mark is on the way. I'll also put a good word about.

Please do read my essay and comment. You may be among the few who already comprehend it's dynamics. I have a few other papers, including exploring the exciting cosmology implied, if you're interested. This year I go deeper into the quantum mechanisms, because it actually unifies the Classical and Quantum physics. There's also a little theatre just for fun.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Curt Youngs replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:28 GMT
Peter:

Well glory be! I can not imagine that I am the only one on Earth to see the sophomoric logic of Einstein's fiction. From the comments so far, to my essay, I gain hope for common sense among scientists and those interested in science/physics. I shall proceed as you request, and review your entry.

Thanks for making my day,

Curt

Also, please review my new post at Space-Time Transformations vs. Motion Transformations

report post as inappropriate

Curt Youngs replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 12:04 GMT
Dang it, the link to my new post should be:

Questioning the Foundations: Space-Time Transformations vs. Motion Transformations

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 10:04 GMT
Curt,

Common sense physics! You should enjoy my essay then. But don't try to rush it, It's a bit more dense than was wise. And the intuition only emerges after removing the old hidden assumptions. I shall point out the sense of yours to others. Do please ask any questions about mine. And perhaps comment on my discussion with Petcho, who seems as 'belief bound' as any.

Your link only sent me to the Alvarez essay, with no post visible!?

Best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Curt Youngs replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 12:16 GMT
I can't get every detail just right! I meant to link to this:

Questioning the Foundations: Space-Time Transformations vs. Motion Transformations

I can't figure out how to include his diagram into the comment. It is a good diagram of conventional wisdom. I tried to show that it is not just an out take of one instant in time, but actually three instants. It is similar to the slight of hand with which Einstein's STR is rife and riddled.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:27 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.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Curt Youngs replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 12:01 GMT
Sergey Fedosin,

I certainly agree with you on this point. I suppose some system of rating is necessary. The site needs to have peoples' interest, and apparently FQXI does get a goodly amount of traffic.

However I doubt that the understanding of reality, i.e. versus reality itself, is changed by voting on it. IMHO, the greatest weight of the judges' prerogative should be placed upon the consistency of logic, and whether the challenges to existing evidence is creditable, rather than "votes" that have "who knows what" agenda attached.

I wish your essay well in the quickly approaching "Judgement day," as I hope for mine as well.

Here is a toast to the discovery of reality. Salute!

report post as inappropriate

Ke Xiao wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 04:50 GMT
Dear Robt Curtis Youngs,

Very interesting to see your essay.

I wish you could read my essay "Rethink the Double Slit Experiment" at

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1452

report post as inappropriate