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

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 19:34pm UTC, wrote Dear James, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

James Wright: on 8/5/13 at 14:31pm UTC, wrote Hector: I urge you to read my Post to Peter (about four above your post)....

Héctor Gianni: on 8/4/13 at 20:20pm UTC, wrote Dear James Burton Wright: ...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/4/13 at 19:46pm UTC, wrote Dear James, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Jim Wright: on 8/4/13 at 18:38pm UTC, wrote Margriet, from Down Under: Have you read my post to Peter, just above...

Margriet O'Regan: on 8/4/13 at 9:51am UTC, wrote Hello Jim from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder ! 'Foundational',...

James Wright: on 7/31/13 at 18:53pm UTC, wrote Peter: I found four earlier papers of yours and went through them, more...

Peter Jackson: on 7/30/13 at 11:55am UTC, wrote Jim, Glad I read your paper. It's very much in my area and I found it...


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...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

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: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Cosmological Explorations 5 by James Burton Wright [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James B. Wright wrote on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 10:09 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract. My explorations in the science of Cosmology have been, and are, designed to discover what is known (tentatively, perhaps?), what is hypothetical, what is pure speculation, what is evidence, and what may have been misinterpreted, or even missed. A major misinterpretation has been the cause of the Cosmological Redshift (CRS). And, in the missing column, are the effectiveness of the Dark Mass (DM) in tying things together, and the importance of the Galaxy Cluster (GC) over all. (See acronym’s Pg. 9) My goal is to present arguments for the solution of some of these questions. The Reader will discover an alternative cause for the CRS without the need for receding galaxies; how the gravitational lens is formed without the need for gravity to “bend” light rays; that the speed of light (C) is only seemingly constant here (in the Milky Way) but may be much slower, or much faster, elsewhere in the GC’s; that Black Holes (BH) are completely unnecessary; that there is a mechanism for the renewal of galaxies at an efficiency of 100%; and that arguments are given for several other, more speculative, ideas.

Author Bio

Biography. As a layman in scientific research I have some 40 years of experience in radio, television, radar and microwave, etc. Always, when given ideas as gospel, things that make no sense in a Universe of objective reality, I look for alternatives reasons for what is being proposed. It was the idea of an Expanding Universe (EU) that resulted in my interest in astronomy and in the science of Cosmology. The newer ideas are my own and were developed using evidence and data available in the literature on astronomy.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Author James B. Wright wrote on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 14:04 GMT
Corrections. On Pages 2, 3 and 9, the symbol for permittivity (ɛ) is not correctly shown in PDF. My PC is just doing its thing. Sorry about that. Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share

Leo Vuyk replied on May. 4, 2013 @ 10:21 GMT
Dear James,

I am very impressed by your air pipe experiment redshift relation.

I am convinced that only experiments will show us the way to the real base for our existence.


Leo Vuyk

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 18:51 GMT

A second experiment that I just concluded was intended to verify T. T. Browns' results to see for myself that a "Thrust" was possible. It failed to produce a measurable thrust, although many others since Brown's time have actually achieved a thrust, so I know that it is real.

In my studies of those tests that worked, one thing they had in common: They all used a tiny capacitor and a very high voltage. I also decided that the cause of the thrust was the charges developed in the capacitor and that one should be able to use a much larger capacitor and a much lower voltage to achieve an even higher charge and thrust.

My capacitor used two 24" square pieces of sheet aluminum (about 20 mil thick) separated by 0.004 Mylar dielectric with 48 volts applied. It weighed about 3.2 lbs. It was suspended from an overhead rafter at about 4 ft. No movement could be seen as the voltage was applied to the uncharged capacitor, even though I believe that there was a movement, but it was just too small to be seen with my relatively massive capacitor. The gravitational force on my capacitor just overwhelmed the forces that were obtained by a separation of the charges.

My conclusion was that in the tests done by others their "Thrust" was seen by offseting gravity using a balance_beam approach, and that even though the thrusts were exceedingly small, but real, nevertheless.

Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share

Philip Gibbs wrote on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 16:09 GMT
James, your theory for redshift seems quite original as far as I know. I agree that is a medium is getting constantly denser it would cause a redshift. Would this medium also deflect light rays in a way we could observe?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright wrote on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 18:33 GMT
Philip. My argument is that the medium that is getting more dense is the Dark Mass. And the cause for this continual change is the action on it by Galaxy Clusters. The gravity of the cluster is pulling galaxies and the Dark Mass in towards its center, causing the galaxies to be squeezed together and the Dark Mass to become continuously more dense.

The drawing on Pg. 7 attempts to show a cross-section of a Galaxy Cluster as it would appear, could it be seen. Remember that there is a continual and never ending inflow of mass towards its center. This, then, shapes the Dark Mass into a massive lens, called the Gravitational Lens (akin to a Luneburg Lens). It is this natural lens, seen in all Galaxy Clusters, that causes the deflection of light (or any electro-magnetic wave), and not the direct action of gravity on the light ray itself. We see evidence all over the sky in the form of arcs of light, the most famous of which is called the Einstein Ring.

Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share

Author James B. Wright replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 23:42 GMT
Hi, All. Jim

attachments: 1_Objectivism_Table_of_Contents__1679x11421.png

Bookmark and Share

Author James B. Wright wrote on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 23:04 GMT
Philip: I think I should have said "refraction" and not "deflection"? Jim W.

Bookmark and Share

Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 16:10 GMT
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this essay. The graphics added at the end of the essay are truly exceptional. I was mesmerized by the feat of the astronomer Halton Arp, who just happened to notice that pairs of Quasars regularly were ejected at high velocities from Seyfert galaxies every 7.5 billion years or so.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Leo Vuyk wrote on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 11:44 GMT
Hello James,

Congratulations with your very interesting ideas about redshift.

Perhaps you also found out that my essay has about the same subject, which is the reason that it took me some time to study yours and react.

I would start simple by telling that we predict the same results on redshift by dark matter influences, however originated by a different physicsl process !!

Your idea is that dark matter is the origin of more particle density and rdshift just as in your laboratory.

My proposal is that Dark matter is based on black hole densities mostly outside galaxies and "eating"the vacuum lattice.

doing so the vacuum lattice is thinned with holes in it. (see attachment)

Thus photonic information is streched out getting longer wavelength and thus redshift.

see my essay fig 1 and 6,7.

I also put it partly as attachments.

attachments: 2_dark_matter_BH_diluting_of_the_vacuum_lattice.jpg, 2_vacuum_lattice_and_particle_wave_duality.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright wrote on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
Leo Vulk:

I appreciate your comments on my paper.

As a premise to my thoughts I assume that we are all promoting our own agenda and are only reluctantly pulled away to openly review someone else'e ideas.

But I did read your paper and was unable to fully comprend all that you worked through, so I'll reserve comment for now.

My approach was/is to use the evidence at...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Leo Vuyk replied on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 17:37 GMT
Dear James,

I reserve my comment for a while.

What I would point at is that indeed Halton Arp suggested that quasars are spittedt out of several galaxies.

If these quasars are in fact SN black holes , then in my view they seem to be able to stabalize outside the galaxy and form together with other BH a dumbbell system which is able to accelerate star formation like Cygnus A and eventually DWARF galaxies.

see my dwarf galaxy essay at:

see you soon.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jacek Safuta wrote on May. 1, 2013 @ 10:34 GMT
Hi James,

Your response to Leo post was: 'I assume that we are all promoting our own agenda and are only reluctantly pulled away to openly review someone else's ideas.' Oh yes, unfortunately you are absolutely right!

Your mission is to discover what is known for sure, hypothetical and what is pure speculation. You expect deep insight into your essay so let us take a look at two of your main candidates for misinterpretation. I will propose you a different outlook.

1. DM (and also DE) are highly speculative ideas and their goal is mainly to save the Einstein equations (Philip D. Mannheim, Alternatives to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. arXiv:astro-ph/0505266v2 1 Aug 2005.)

2. CRS. There could be another possible cause of the CRS. I agree . But better to find a concept without any pipes, air or air pressure increasing as there is no evidence of their existence far away from the Earth. E.g. acc. to my concept the cause is the spacetime elasticity that slows down the waves approaching the Earth. Of course assuming that the waves are made of the spacetime itself and not the spacetime is a background only. (

Practically every essay in the contest is speculative however more or less anchored in the official physics. But that is the contest idea. I like to cite Einstein and for this occasion his wisdom is: 'I think that only daring speculation can lead us further and not accumulation of facts.'

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright wrote on May. 2, 2013 @ 15:13 GMT
Jacek Safuta:

Re: No. 1. The Dark Mass (DM) is known to exist although just what it is is not known. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are “pure speculation”. The DM, presumably, fills the Observable Universe (OU).

Re: No. 2. In my redshift experiment I used air as a medium with which to cause a ‘hands on’ experiment, to demonstrate that a perfectly plausible and alternative means of redshifting is available. Under “The Medium” I proposed that the DM was that medium, and discussed how it could do the job under “Galaxy Clusters”.

But stand back, Jacek, and look at the Cosmological skeleton I’ve devised:

The Milky Way is a part of our local Galaxy Cluster (GC). That cluster is one of perhaps 20 million such clusters in the OU and, presumably, of far more in the unobservable space beyond the edge of the OU.

Each GC is busy drawing into its center all its galaxies and DM and, after a suitable period of gestation, gives birth to Quasars, ejecting them at a great velocity. The Quasar is an extremely compressed mass containing the mass of a galaxy and, in time, expands this mass to form a new full-fledged galaxy. Nothing is lost, and the process goes on forever. Just that simple.

We live in an infinite and eternal Existence.

Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share

Anonymous wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 19:52 GMT
Leo Vuyk;

Re yours of 5/4, yes, the experiment with the pipe and pressurized air as a medium led me to the Dark Mass as a medium in space that does exactly what is needed to develop the Cosmological Redshift.

And, if you haven’t already done so, I urge to call up CalcTool-Solenoid calculator, on Google, and do what I did under ‘The Earth’ on Pg.3 on to ‘Mars’ on Pg. 4 of my essay. This will lead you down all sorts of interesting avenues, one of which is to find that the Dark Mass is the negative energy mass (NEM) that is leaving the Sun, and all stars in the Universe. Also, it will tell you why the Earth’s North/South poles also reverse positions every million years, or so.

Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 13, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT

In my Essay I spoke of the fact that light would travel at different speeds within a Galaxy Cluster caused by its Gravitational Lens. If we use Fig. 6, in the Essay, and consider only one Source, its Observer would be at infinity. If we bring the Observer far closer to the Lens the original Source would be pushed farther away, which depicts what we would likely observe. Now, if we placed a second Lens adjacent to the first and have the light wave traverse both we could get a rather convoluted paths; possibly two or more.

Reiterating this story, as the light travels from its Source to the Observer through the Lens it would be refracted and so follow a curved path that is longer than if there were no Lens. And, as it travels closer to the center of the Lens it would travel more slowly due to the increase in the dielectric constant of the Lens, and more rapidly as it travels out of the Cluster beyond the Milky Way. (See Fig. 4 of the Essay.)

To reach us (the Observer) it would traverse through our own Lens but (most likely) the Lens’s of adjacent Galaxy Clusters. Should it travel through several Lens’s it would most likely travel a convoluted path (in that the Lens’s are unlikely perfect, equal sized spheres, as I’ve depicted them, and therefore, while their Redshift would be an indication of the time of travel of the light wave it would not be related to the straight line distance from Source to Observer.

There is another effect that might be noticed in the Redshifts read from galaxies from several Clusters, and that is a “grouping” of those Redshifts. This would occur if the Clusters were in a pattern of circles all around us. The first “group” would be tightest, the second less tight, the third even less tight, until the “grouping” effect disappeared.

Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright wrote on May. 28, 2013 @ 13:35 GMT

In the beginningof my essay I suggest that one may argue that out Observable Universe is actually an infinite and eternal State of Existence. Supporting this are some thoughts about the Observable Universe (OU).

We are in the middle of the sphere that contains the OU. I have a distant cousin who lives in a galaxy at the edge of our OU who has an OU of his own, which is comprised of some galaxies from my OU and some new galaxies found farther out. Another cousin lives on the opposite side of my OU but farther out still and she has her own OU which uses all new galaxies.

Is there any logical reason that these OU's cannot continue on to infinity, and remain there eternally, churning about a bit in the effort to regenerate themselves in their own galaxy clusters?

Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share

Author James B. Wright wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 18:08 GMT

I want only to point out that the Galactic Clusters are the Motive Power for the entire Universe, on out to Infinity, and are Eternally so.

Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share

Author James B. Wright wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 16:59 GMT

Should any of you wish to correspond with me directly, my Email address is:

Jim W.

Bookmark and Share

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 07:45 GMT
Dear James B. Wright

Your deductive very interesting, but it would be difficult to can be prove.

Give you 3 points as score you are .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 20:40 GMT
Hoangcao Hai:

Can I prove it? No, but neither can anybody else, as an absolute, but that doesn’t prove that it’s not absolute. We are at the mercy of our astronomer/physicist who collects and analyses the information obtained through their marvelous telescopes. All is electro-magnetic energy, with its frequency and spectrum studied. But these folks can not see beyond the Observable...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 03:33 GMT
Send to all of you


To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 15:05 GMT

Re: "Absolute".

My understanding of the adjective "absolute" is as a declaration by mankind that something is 'absolutely evil', or 'absolute zero', or an 'absolute lie', etc., etc.

In that in Cosmology we are studying the Cosmos as "Objective Reality", does this not rule out the 'Subjective', i.e., mankind's input? If man were not around the Universe would continue to 'do its thing' forever.

There is only one absolute and that is the axiomatic concept of "Existence", and its corallaries of "Conciousness" and "Identity", as identified in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "Existence Exists.", and cannot be refuted without using existence in the process of attempting to refute.

All else is hypothesis based on evidence that seems to be true. Or else based on magic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 17:48 GMT
Hi, Hai: I am 'anomymous'. Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share

Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 13:20 GMT
Hello James,

I think you have looked at this question with an open mind and the result is very original.

Your conclusion that there is no need for Black Holes sits well with other essays in the contest. The conclusions in my essay seem to allow singularities to be skipped over, from an information viewpoint while still capturing the characteristics of Black Holes. I wonder if our two ideas are compatible?

Kind regards,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 15:47 GMT

Thanks for your Post, and comments.

I have read your Essay and most of the others and find them all to be beyond my ken, mathematically, so I cannot comment on, nor rate, them with any degree of comprehension. So I don't. In that all are discussing the same Universe, most should have some degree of compatability because all are interpretations from the same evidence (from...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 21:17 GMT
Hi James,

That's the beauty of the contest - looking at the Universe in different ways and sharing ideas.

Hope you're enjoying the essays as much as me.

All the best,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:35 GMT

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 16:52 GMT
To All.

In my essay, Pg. 1, I advance a philosophical argument to which I want to add a new thought. If Existence is infinite and eternal and engaged in a renewal process that uses old mass to get new mass it should have stabilized, and eternity ago, so that it would have an overall density that, on average, did not change. Such a Universe would automatically preclude the notions of “Expansion”, or “Inflation”, or whatever.

Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share

Author James B. Wright wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 18:33 GMT
To All.

In my essay, Pg. 3 and under Halton Arp, I present the argument that mass, falling into the Seyfert galaxies, is “transformed” into new galaxies, but don’t dig more deeply into this transformation phase. Observe that the Seyfert galaxies all have Active Galactic Nuclei. Observe, also, that the Seyferts at the center of a Galaxy Cluster is many times more massive than the average Seyfert, and so it should not be unexpected that it would behave differently.

As the Galaxy Cluster adds more mass it is the very center of the nucleus of the Seyfert that reaches a critical mass first and that nuclear ignition is initiated. The added pressure of the fireball causes it to expand (within the nucleus) until its surface pressure no longer reaches the needed critical mass and no more ignition occurs.

Observe that this entire explosion occurs within the nucleus itself and, so, causes the internal pressures to grow far beyond the critical mass. It is within this super-dense fireball that the various elements and other masses are transformation into the simple elements found in the new galaxies that are formed from the Quasars.

How these Quasars, with the mass of entire galaxies, are ejected from the Seyfert is thought to be electro-magnetic, with the Quasars traveling out through the magnetic poles of the Seyfert.

Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT
Dear James,

I read your essay with great interest, It is written in the spirit of Rene Descartes: "loud and clear" very good language with illustrations. World contests FQXi - it contests new fundamental ideas, new deep meanings and new concepts. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions:

«Always, when given ideas as gospel, things that make no sense in a Universe of

objective reality, I look for alternatives reasons for what is being proposed. »...« Finally, if Existence exists here now after an eternity of burning, there must be some echanism at work that results in a 100% efficient regeneration of all the existents in existence. Confirming such an Existence became the goal for my cosmological explorations.»

And your main conclusion is very radical. That's radical ideas are needed now physics and cosmology: «Is it not logical to conclude that this ocean of GC's, each with its own renewal engines at work, fills the OU, and on to infinity? No need for BH's! »Great!"

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.» Http://www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

And I have for you a second question: How should the physics go to physical picture of the world was as rich in meaning as the picture of the world lyricists?

Although 5 - my favorite number (my birthday and my daughter), I put the rating of your essay "happy nine". Please look at my essay and fair vote.

Best regards,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 18:44 GMT

In entering the FQXi contest my hope was not primarily to win $10,000, but more in the hopes of getting hundreds if astronomer/physicists, and astronomer/philosophers, to read the paper and to respond with arguments as to why what I have developed is wrong, or right. I do appreciate your comments as the most understanding of the few that have responded.

When I started putting my cosmological ideas together (some years ago) I realized the importance of philosophy in science. Not only important, but fundamental! I had previously discovered Ayn Rand’s philosophy (many more years ago), and knew of a book by Leonard Peikoff explaining in great detail the whole of Rand’s philosophy.

In the belief that this philosophy of Objectivism will fascinate you as it did me I’ve copied its Table of Contents below. “Existence” is presented as an axiomatic concept which cannot be refuted, and which must be fully apprehended. And it is important to accept the “Primacy of Existence over Consciousness” as an axiom. From this all else is causally connected, in philosophy or in science, including epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

My whole Cosmological Model was first developed philosophically and only then was the evidence from the astronomers used to support such a model physically. In my opinion, of course, it did. And this is my challenge.

Jim Wright

attachments: Objectivism_Table_of_Contents__1679x11421.png

Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 15:29 GMT
Hello Jim,

Yes, I fully agree with you. It is a deep philosophical approach to my attention in your essay. I looked at your link, thank you very much! I have to try to look for can have in russian ...

Once again, I am convinced, and I agree with you that FQXi contest are of great importance for the promotion of ideas. Thank FQXi! It is good that here you find new friends and associates.

I'm waiting for you on my forum.

Good luck in the contest!

With best regards,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 18:39 GMT

I found a lot of Ayn Rand's novels and essays in Russian but not Peikoff's book on her Philosophy. You may find something through The Ayn Rand Institute. In any event, I urge you to read it in English if you have to. It is most important.

You may be pleased to know that Ayn Rand was born in Russia and only after graduating from a University there did she migrate to the U.S.

I am totally engrossed in another book called "Free Market Revolution", by Yaron Brook, which points out that we (in the US, particularly) are fast approaching a meltdown (a great depression) unless we revolt against Government regulations. This is predicted in Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged", which is available in Russian.

Yaron Brook claims to provide a solution, which I'm desperately hoping he does and that we follow through, whatever it entails. I'm currently just starting Part II, which he has entitled "The Solution". We'll see.

I am not ignoring your Essay and have read a bit of it, but suspect that I'll have to tell you what I told another writer, of 7/1, that I may not really comprehend the math and science in the Essay so would be unable to discuss it intelligently, nor to rate it honestly.

Wishing you well.

Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share

Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 21:26 GMT

I've printed off your interesting sounding essay and look forward to reading of your explorations.

Apparently my own abstract may be a bit dense and off putting, but not indicative, so I hope you may tempt you to read and score it by including a few of the better comments from other authors so far;

"I accept unequivocally your solution to the unique/identical problem."

"you have made a valuable contribution... It is a pleasure to read."

"As always, you're impressive!"

"This seems to be one of the more interesting approaches I've read … ...That's testament to your great writing ability - I think you've done a fantastic job."

"Your essay has clarified the whole issue of no-go theorems".

"Peter and others interested in his wonderful essay,..."

"I think your work is clearly significant, and will resolve certain apparently 'metaphysical' aspects of reality to the 'physical' Cosmos."

"I am deeply impressed with your depth of knowledge. I am also struck the depth of your thinking, your graphics, and your willingness to 'put yourself on the line' intellectually."

"Your essay is attractive and I read it with much interest."

"we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it."

"Technically challenging and philosophically deep - very few papers meet both. This is one of them."

"I hope this astonishing paper finds many many readers, especially among theoretical physicists: It is groundbreaking."

Now extended for the very last week now! Very best wishes.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 11:55 GMT

Glad I read your paper. It's very much in my area and I found it original, well organised and easy to read. Perhaps a few of your assumptions needed more researching, but with such a broad area and strict limit it's more important to get the propositions across, which you did well.

We certainly share a strong realist view, in fact maybe me more than you as I use an empirical approach to build a coherent if radical ontology to get a particular spectacular proof, but I agree many of your fundamentals including;

A background medium (my last 2 essays show how this need not be 'absolute' so suffer the theoretical problems assumed.)

Quasar evolution into galaxies as Arps' suggestion (though fully developed to a recycling model and evolutionary sequence- but two radical for MS so far! (outline paper avail if you're interested- see prev essays). ..and..;

Redshift/Accelerating Expansion. Frankly one of the greatest failures of intellectual application in astronomy, and related to the above.(The above model agrees limited and peculiar expansion matching the CMB anisotropies).

I do hope you can also read and score mine. With your experiance you may be interested that it was built from a model explaining why Maxwell's near/far field transition zone is different for all wavelengths (paper available on arXiv).

Well done for yours, and best of luck.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 18:53 GMT

I found four earlier papers of yours and went through them, more thoroughly in the first one, but to an extent in the other three. My approach is totally different than the other papers in these contests in that it begins philosophically.

1. Ayn Rand has identified ‘Existence’ as an axiomatic concept, a concept that cannot be refuted. It is self evident. Furthermore,...

view entire post

attachments: 1_fig.11_Light_Pathr_thru_2_adjacent_gravitational_lenses__650x326.jpg

Bookmark and Share

Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 09:51 GMT
Hello Jim from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder ! 'Foundational', 'interesting', 'original & creative', technically correct & rigourously argued', 'well & clearly written', 'accessible'. Your essay ticked all the boxes for me. Not only do I agree with many of your main points (quasars bring matter into our universe) but you reference some 'not-very-well-known' authors - Ayn Rand - & astronomers -Halton Arp - who's work I too find convincing.

I'm a big fan of 'The Electric Universe' at I wonder if you've heard of them - I think they would be very interested in your work. Halton Arp is one of their 'patron saints' - I jest !!! as is also Kristian Birkeland. The folks at Thunderbolts suggest that our universe is a plasma universe & that what mainstreamers call dark energy/dark matter is plasma .. ..

My own essay is focused pretty much exclusively on 'information' & I am so bold as to claim that I have discovered information's exact ontology - hope you enjoy it !!!

Regards - Margriet.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jim Wright replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 18:38 GMT
Margriet, from Down Under:

Have you read my post to Peter, just above yours to me? It summarizes my thoughts. A proper philosophy must underlie all knowledge, and for this reason I began my paper with one, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Halton Arp, Ayn Rand, and Vera Rubin were just a few of the thinkers that were ostracized by the Establishment. That was true of Galileo. (Perhaps that is why their teachings attract me.)

I'm delighted that you chose to think and question the statuesque. It certainly needs it.

I'll be studying your paper more thoroughly soon but want to remind you that "Existence has primacy over Consciousness".


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:46 GMT
Dear James,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 20:20 GMT
Dear James Burton Wright:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.


view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James B. Wright wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 14:31 GMT

I urge you to read my Post to Peter (about four above your post). This states my arguments in brief. It also points up the " Primacy of Existence over

Consciousness", i.e., Existence existed before man, ands his consciousness, existed. If you believe, as I do, that Existence is infinite and eternal, then time has no real meaning, any more that a kilometer, other than as a way that man can comprehend Existence.

I haven't yet studied your essay but will before long. Until then,

My best to you.

Jim Wright

Bookmark and Share

Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:34 GMT
Dear James,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

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.