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

james akerlund: on 8/8/13 at 0:44am UTC, wrote Hi Sreenath, I did indeed read your submissions and left some comments on...

james akerlund: on 8/8/13 at 0:42am UTC, wrote Hi Paul, I did read your submission and I did respond, not once but twice....

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 20:30pm UTC, wrote Dear James, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Sreenath N: on 8/7/13 at 6:19am UTC, wrote Dear James, You have written a very innovative article in which you have...

KoGuan Leo: on 8/2/13 at 8:26am UTC, wrote Dear Akindo, You posed always interesting questions. The question I would...

KoGuan Leo: on 8/2/13 at 8:23am UTC, wrote Dear James, "Here are the three basic laws of equality for any commutative...

basudeba mishra: on 7/28/13 at 12:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Sir, This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We...

Sreenath N: on 7/24/13 at 8:11am UTC, wrote Dear James, I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it....


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: On Dimensions & Relativities by james r. akerlund [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author james r. akerlund wrote on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

This paper will explore the relationship between dimensions and relativity. We will do this in the context of the FQXi question of "It from Bit or Bit from It?". We will try to show that dimensions are neither Bit nor It by showing a separate relativity from special relativity that is specific for the parallel universe dimension. We will confirm this new relativity by giving an example of the Born rule that applies in a parallel universe but doesn't apply in this universe. We will then propose the existence of two new relativities for the other spacetime dimensions. A chart is presented to show the relationship between the dimensions and relativities. Finally we will argue that the "rest" of all these relativities, both proposed and existent, creates the spacetime/dimensions we observe that is neither It nor Bit.

Author Bio

The author is not a condensed matter physiscist so the following may be wrong from certain principles within condensed matter physics. With that in mind, the author believes that communication between parallel universes might now be within reach for our universe. The paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2697v2 describes triangle anomalies that can be detected (read) and created (write). Triangle anomalies don't violate the conservation of energy. We aren't saying that communication between parallel universes will be something as simple as Morse code using triangle anomalies, but we can hope.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 06:20 GMT
James

Space (as in distance, dimension, size, etc) is implied by what comprises existence. That is, whatever exists ‘needs’ space, and it is an artefact thereof. In other words, distance, for example, is the spatial difference between physical states which are existent at the same time.

There is no relativity of existence in any reality. Time is the rate of turnover of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Hi Paul,

I have been reading other authors submissions and the comments they generate. One of the authors I have been reading is Joe Fisher and his submission "Bitters". It seems you are also in conversation with him. And here is a quote you write to him; "Because you lost the argument on my blog, I am going to respond here.". All I can really say is, Wow.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 07:18 GMT
Jim

I am not sure you are attributing the quote to the right person. But yes I ignored the somewhat rude nature of that response, and made the point, again, on his blog. The simple point being that it is not the 'object' that is unique, but whatever physically existent state it is in at any given time. Or put another way, St Pauls Cathedral, etc, does not exist physically, as we conceive it.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 17:40 GMT
Hi Paul,

So, let's apply your quote, "Or put another way, St Pauls Cathedral, etc, does not exist physically, as we conceive it." to this quote of yours, "I am not sure you are attributing the quote to the right person."

On June 15, 2013 at 05:50 GMT this post from a Paul Reed was posted to Joe Fisher's comments section

--------------------------------------------

"Joe

"Paul
,

Because you lost the argument on my blog, I am going to respond here. I have never "conceived" of my toe. You apparently do not know the difference between conception and perception, just as your version of existentialism has prevented you from understanding what the word last actually means."

Perception is conception. You speak of a unique state. But what you are referring to is not a physically unique state. It is how we perceive/conceive reality, for fairly obvious reasons, ie we need to get on with life.

What is existent, ie determines the reality at that time, is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. Objects 'exist', in the sense of what we think are objects, in a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states. You know this. Take any object, and you know it does not continue to exist in the same state. The bush is unique, there is only one bush, it is different from other bushes, the garden wall, birds in the garden, etc. But in terms of physical existence, bush is ontologically incorrect. It just looks as if it is the same thing physically, because we are defining bush on the basis of superficial physical characteristics.

Paul"

----------------------------------

The first sentence is the one I quoted for you, are you still denying it? Remember, that statement of yours "does not exist physically, as we conceive it".

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 11:41 GMT
Dear Sir,

Wheeler’s definition of “It” as “apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits” has to be read with “registering of equipment-evoked responses”. The binary unit, or bit, is a message representing one of two choices: 1 or 0 – on or off – yes or no. The ‘on’s are coded (written in programming language) with 1 and the ‘off’s with 0....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 19:59 GMT
Hi Basudeba,

Oh, you have written oh so much. I guess I will take bits and pieces(you may call it cherry picking), and present counter arguments to them. A word of note, I am not going to discuss your paper in this comment section. I will discuss your paper on your comments section, when I read you paper. First, I need to describe the writing conditions I am currently laboring under. ...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 01:56 GMT
Dear Sir,

Good that you have tempered your aggressive posturing with discussion on weather. We wish you would have kept your commitment of discussing our essay when you visited there. Is there any point in wasting time?

Your first repudiation of our quote: 1 does not stand for nothing; but as we have pointed out, it stands for a code in programming language. Your u is also a code for...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 05:07 GMT
Hi Basudeba,

The thunderstorm forced me to turn off my computer, so I haven't read your submission yet.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 18:00 GMT
James

Is the Universe real? Yes

Is information real? No

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 18:37 GMT
Hi Joe,

Is the question and answer, "Is information real? No!" information?

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 14:35 GMT
James,

Is the question and answer “Is the Universe unreal? Yes” real?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 01:29 GMT
Hi Joe,

What is your definition of real?

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share



John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 18:32 GMT
Interesting essay James. Only read through once so certainly missing both obvious and subtle points you are making; so out of ignorance I ask: what parts of ESR hold in these alternate-relative dimensions, and which ones can be violated? (i.e. frames of reference, constant of c, etc.?)

Thank You.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 19:16 GMT
Hi John,

I'm not sure what ESR means. Is it Einsten Special Relativity?

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share


John C Maguire replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 00:50 GMT
Yes sir. Sorry about the ambiguity. Get carried away w/ acronyms sometimes.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 02:54 GMT
Hi John,

In my submission is a chart. The chart is a sort of meta understanding of special relativity. The left side of the chart lists a series a properties for relativity. They are; principle of relativity, invariant constant, frame of reference, Lorentz transformation type equation, difference observers observe, and physical consequence. Special relativity has a concept filled for every one of those properties. My submission has a concept filled for every one of those properties for the parallel universe dimension. As you can see by the chart they are in some way different from each other for every single one of those properties. I like to call the chart the periodic table for dimensions. When the real periodic table was drawn up it had empty spots also. The real table was predicting the existence of atoms of certain properties at the time. Eventually those stoms were found and some more have recently been found. Hope this helps.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 04:08 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you for appreciating our essay. We have replied to the points raised by you in our thread.

Incidentally, the format of the contest is defective, as unless you have friends, you will not get rated properly. During 2010, we had written to the organizers giving some proof how a cartel voted themselves. We recommended to set up a screening panel to short-list the finalists. But nothing changed. Most people have not read our essay because we are not in their circle. Most of those who have read our essay either have not rated it or not rated it in commensurate with the appreciation they express in their comments. Specifically, because we do not follow the "main stream" science and ask questions that are difficult to answer, we are avoided. Thus, we are sure that we will be voted out and will not reach final consideration stage.

Still, thanks again for your wishes.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 04:59 GMT
Hi Basudeba,

There are always people trying to game the system, whatever that system might be. Last night I found out that at the grocery store I go to, you are not allowed to by open six packs of root beer at self-checkout. Its seems kids are gaming the system by inserting beer in replacement of the root beer. I am sure FQXi is well aware of the situation and has put it's best ideas forward to fix the problem. If they haven't, then that is fine also, because FQXi offers a far better service then the contest. That service is people reading my ideas and yours. We are both winners in that respect.

Once again Basudeba, good luck in the contest.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 18:41 GMT
James,

Fascinating essay. Quite unique. I had to read it twice and I couldn't find a flaw in the logic I found.

I also find special relativity flawed, also proposing an optical illusion, and also address the Born Rule in my essay (as one leg of an ontological construction). I never supported the consequences of decoherence Everett proposed, which I suppose comes from studying...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 01:44 GMT
Hi Peter,

Thanks for the positive comments.

As for your discussion concerning the "a=a is false.". If you look at the last proof in my submission, I state that an=am is false, as the stepping stone to a parallel universe numerial system. But asside of my proof, I am sure you will find somewhere in math where someone has discussed the "a=a is false" issue. The mathematicans have been very very busy while we weren't looking, and now they are coming back from their work and saying the world isn't as you think it is. I think sometimes they are right.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 16:42 GMT
James,

I agree, indeed I think anyone who says the universe isn't how we think it is is right! And indeed in some ways your parallel universe seems to have analogies with simple parallel inertial systems.

But I wonder if they in turn would agree to the suggestion in my essay that mathematics isn't quite what they think it is!? I hope you'll have a chance to read and discuss.

Thanks. And best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 08:34 GMT
Hi Peter,

I did read your submission and I posted comments on your discussion board. Good luck in the contest.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 20:30 GMT
Dear Jim

Your essay shows the picky of data collection and calculation, but unfortunately that the conclusion seems to be digress.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 00:05 GMT
Hi Hoàngcao,

This contest was about its or bits. Having picky data collection in a contest about information is OK by my standards. Anyway, thanks for the comments.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:38 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

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


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:04 GMT
James,

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.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 03:21 GMT
Hi Jim,

I have been visiting other peoples submissions and I have been seeing this exact post on their sites. That means that this is an ad. There are many ways to get people to read your submission and vote on it. One author has apparently requested his friends (our fake friends) to vote for him. In order to find him go to the top of the FQXi forum for this contest and select ordering of the submissions by "public rating". He is at the top with a simply amazing public rating score. So, on a scale of 1 - 10 where 1 is benign and 10 is nasty in getting votes, yours is a 4. Just wanted to let you know.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share


Author james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 03:42 GMT
Hi Jim,

It looks like if you do the thing I say to do for the "public rating" you will not find the guy I am referring too. Actually, the one I am referring too is the one near the top with an amazing public rating score and lots of ratings. It just looks suspicious that no lone else in the public ratings has anywhere near the number of public ratings he has.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 13:28 GMT
Hello Jim,

Your essay has a nice mathematical flavor to it. You talk about the Planck length towards the end, eg. "…what we want to show is that the Planck length doesn't dictate reality.."

The question I would like to ask is 1) Do you think the Planck length has any significant physical importance in this universe? Not talking of a parallel one. 2) Can a ruler of Planck length undergo Lorentz contraction as postulated by SR?

Cheerio,

Akinbo

*My essayessay is not so mathematically flavored so not sure you will like it but you may try

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 01:46 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

Thanks for the comments concerning my essay. As for question 1, Yes the Planck length has a significant importance in the universe, but above the Planck length also has a significant importance in this universe. I will give a poor analogy. The cells in your finger are as important to you as the operation of your eye. Both work on different scales but both are important to you.

As for question 2, I believe Wheeler is correct in his assesment of what is happening at the Planck length. He says that the concepts of space and time no longer make sense at that scale, so getting a ruler do to that scale is problematic let alone doing anything or observing anything. Hope this answers your questions.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share


KoGuan Leo replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 08:26 GMT
Dear Akindo,

You posed always interesting questions.

The question I would like to ask is 1) Do you think the Planck length has any significant physical importance in this universe? KQID answer: yes. "Not talking of a parallel one. 2) Can a ruler of Planck length undergo Lorentz contraction as postulated by SR?" KQID relativity answer: yes based on this equation ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) that time contracts; thus length contracts as τL and mass as well as energy increases as m/τ. Where KQID τ = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)t where t is time of the origin.

Dear James, forgive me for saying this: KQID can answers the above questions that orthodox physics has yet and will never be able to do so due to its theoretical limit in the Planck scales that everything becomes non-sensical.

Respectfully,

Leo KoGuan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 09:56 GMT
Hello James,

Excellent essay and great line of thinking. Parts are similar to my ways of thinking about this Universe, and because it resonates so close to that, I give you 10/10. You've envisaged some very original and interesting ideas. Please take a look at my essay too - I hope you find it of some interest.

Well done and congratulations on an excellent piece!

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 08:11 GMT
Dear James,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 06:19 GMT
Dear James,

You have written a very innovative article in which you have viewed physics from an entirely different angle by basing your theory on dimension physics and the concept of separate relativity for the parallel universe dimension, framed by you. I appreciate this effort of yours for the originality of its approach in dealing with various problems we face in physics in a fundamental way. But you have to continue with this method to complete the task you have set forth yourself without being discouraged in your pursuit of wisdom. I quite agree with you when you say that the Planck length doesn't dictate reality. My point of view of fundamental physics also I have come to this conclusion. The elegance, simplicity of mathematical approach and for originality, I will rate your essay with maximum score. You, please, go through my essay and post your comments on it in my thread. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

All the best,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 00:44 GMT
Hi Sreenath,

I did indeed read your submissions and left some comments on your submission page. Again, good luck in the contest.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:18 GMT
Dear Sir,

This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


KoGuan Leo wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 08:23 GMT
Dear James,

"Here are the three basic laws of equality for any commutative ring R. Reflexive law: a = a.

Symmetric law: If a = b, then b = a.

Transitive law: If a = b and b = c, then a = c, valid for all a, b, and c.

For all a in R, 1 * a = a."

Yes, only within absolute digital time T ≤ 10^-1000seconds but after this T, our Multiverse jumps according to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:30 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:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(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

Author james r. akerlund replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 00:42 GMT
Hi Paul,

I did read your submission and I did respond, not once but twice. The first responce is to show you how to put URL's in your posts. Hope I helped.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share



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.